17280 x 12970 image needs rotating, nothing I have can do it
Daniel Brashby
compression), BMP, PNG, WMF, EMF and PSD.
My problem is I need to rotate it 90 degrees.
Macromedia Fireworks crashes on trying to load the beast. I have 3 gigs
of RAM in this computer and a large pagefile. I watched the RAM usage
and it got about 1/3rd of the way up before Fireworks tanked.
The GIMP will load it, but tanks when trying to rotate it.
Is there a way I can up the amount of memory allocation in either of
these applications? Alternatively, what application can do it?
Freeware/Shareware/Payware whatever.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Reduce the size of the image, there's no conceivable reason as to why
you need it that big...well other than pure fucking stupidity anyway.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Glorywest
editing programs may be okay with it too. Can you open and save as a
jpg (high) then open the jpg and rotate that? Then you could do your
work and save as a tif, etc.
Aaron
Fireworks was never conceived to be able to handle such ridiculously
huge images; it's for web graphics. Still,I can imagine situations
where, for example, you are working with a billboard design or a layout
for the side of a truck and you need to work with images that big. It
must be possible.
Rotation shouldn't be that hard to do, it's just a matrix
transformation, nothing too complicated, processing-wise. I suggest
trying Photoshop if you haven't already. Failing that, you could attempt
to use Image Magick, which is a commandline tool and probably incurs the
least amount of overhead, although I am not sure if it has stated image
size limitations.
--
Aaron
"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems
good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the
rest." -- John Stuart Mill
Glorywest
a photograph for a 6 x 3' poster and other types of exhibit stuff we
had files that size and larger. My photographer was editing 1 gig files
for me on occasion.
Hunter Elliott
"Daniel Brashby" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158938806.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I have a HUGE image (17280 x 12970) that I can save to TIF (with LZW
> compression), BMP, PNG, WMF, EMF and PSD.
some bitmap apps have a limitation in size of 10,000x10,000 px, some don't.
What applications do you have access to?
Drew
> Reduce the size of the image, there's no conceivable reason as to why
> you need it that big...well other than pure fucking stupidity anyway.
>
Have you ever heard of a billboard, mural, etc.
Please forgive our village idiot, Daniel and try Glowywest's options.
D
Drew
Can you work on it as is and have it turned by whoever rips it?
D
Fred Doyle
"Drew" <whoisthat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FHXQg.33447$Md4....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
> Please forgive our village idiot, Daniel and try Glowywest's options.
It is amazing that some people don't realize that they can't know everything
and so repeatedly look like a fool (but in demigod-like propotions, at
least). This is the same guy that said there's never a need to talk to a
printer about a job you are having printed. They are just monkeys that push
buttons.
Anyway, its Friday and one of those printers you never need to talk to is
having an open house to show off some new technology. Free drinks and food,
and I'm on my way.
Fred Doyle
Glorywest
do with the image and it's final output. We can make better suggestions
for you when we know more.
Fungusized
This may sound odd, but try it:
Put the image in it's own folder. open the folder, and set it to view
"filmstrip" (I'm assuming you're using a Windows PC, as you haven't
specified). There are a couple of little buttons under the image in
filmstrip view, one to rotate 90 degrees clockwise, one for counter.
Give it a shot :)
UprightCitizen
"Daniel Brashby" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158938806.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Hey just download Photoshop CS2 Demo
Drew
I'll take a bourbon on the rocks, thank you.
D
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>There are many reasons you might need an image that big.
...well no, actually. If you have an image that big you are simply a
fucking retard...there *IS NO* other explanation for it. *shrugs*
>When producing
>a photograph for a 6 x 3' poster
A 6x3' poster eh? Well, let's do some math...
72x36 inches...a print dpi of...let's say 150 (kinda high for yer
average tweeny bopper poster print I know, but I'm humoring your
deficiency here)...
72x150=1080
36x150=5400
So, for a poster of that size printing at the maximum dpi/ppi that you
SHOULD be using for optimal quality yer lookin at an image no larger
than 1080x5400...and the op (who DID NOT specify that it was even FOR
a poster) has an image that's - 17280 x 12970.
DUM DUM DUM DUM!
Do I need to start bitch slapping you with standard poster sizes next,
n00b.job?
Or...maybe I should just bring up the fact that there's an option to
ROTATE THE IMAGE UPON PRINTING...DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM!
Or...maybe I should bring up the fact that you usually BLOW UP an
image upon printing when you're dealing with posters, rather than
having some giant fucking file on your computer which makes no gawd
damn sense at all unless someone is gonna be trying to look at your
poster from 2 inches away.
Furthermore, RETARD, if you WEREN'T so incredibly fucking DUMB you
would realize the CONTEXT of the message, which VERY SPECIFICALLY
states that the program being used is FIREWORKS...so it's not too much
of a stretch to presume that the image is being used FOR A WEB
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT...and not for printing a poster you dribbling
retard. Probably for something like nyah:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Envirojobby.jpg
Original PS files are 1656x3384, every object is on its own layer
(including text shadow effects) with an overall file size of around
200mb. Flattened images using uncompressed TIFF are around 20mb a
piece.
>and other types of exhibit stuff we
>had files that size and larger.
Only because you're fucking stupid! It's like...yeah...you CAN scan
an image at pretty much any theoretical resolution you like...but
uh...that's not gonna magically make quality out of nothing you stupid
n00b.
>My photographer was editing 1 gig files for me on occasion.
Yes well your photographer is an idiot when it comes to computer
graphic formats, resolution, scanning, etc. Why don't you post the
specifics of the 1 gig files so that I can further rip you apart,
Kiddo. `, )
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Fireworks does not like big images. Photoshop does. Some other bitmap
>editing programs may be okay with it too. Can you open and save as a
>jpg (high) then open the jpg and rotate that? Then you could do your
>work and save as a tif, etc.
Yeah cause doing THAT wouldn't be absolutely fucking retarded.
*shakes head* Glory honey...I realize yer using Google froups, the
WEBTV of Usenet, which sorta implies yer not the brightest crayon in
the box when it comes to technology...but surely you aren't THAT
fucking inept when it comes to dealing with digital graphic
formats...I mean...no seriously... o_O
Onideus Mad Hatter
<use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>On 22 Sep 2006 11:07:20 -0700, "Glorywest" <glor...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>There are many reasons you might need an image that big.
>
>...well no, actually. If you have an image that big you are simply a
>fucking retard...there *IS NO* other explanation for it. *shrugs*
>
>>When producing
>>a photograph for a 6 x 3' poster
>
>A 6x3' poster eh? Well, let's do some math...
>
>72x36 inches...a print dpi of...let's say 150 (kinda high for yer
>average tweeny bopper poster print I know, but I'm humoring your
>deficiency here)...
>
>72x150=1080
>36x150=5400
>
>So, for a poster of that size printing at the maximum dpi/ppi that you
>SHOULD be using for optimal quality yer lookin at an image no larger
>than 1080x5400...and the op (who DID NOT specify that it was even FOR
>a poster) has an image that's - 17280 x 12970.
Slight correction, that should read 10,800 not 1,080, however that's
still about HALF the size of what the OP was claiming.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Fungusized
> On 22 Sep 2006 11:07:20 -0700, "Glorywest" <glor...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>There are many reasons you might need an image that big.
>
>
> ...well no, actually. If you have an image that big you are simply a
> fucking retard...there *IS NO* other explanation for it. *shrugs*
>
>
>>When producing
>>a photograph for a 6 x 3' poster
>
>
> A 6x3' poster eh? Well, let's do some math...
>
> 72x36 inches...a print dpi of...let's say 150 (kinda high for yer
> average tweeny bopper poster print I know, but I'm humoring your
> deficiency here)...
>
> 72x150=1080
> 36x150=5400
>
> So, for a poster of that size printing at the maximum dpi/ppi that you
> SHOULD be using for optimal quality yer lookin at an image no larger
> than 1080x5400...and the op (who DID NOT specify that it was even FOR
> a poster) has an image that's - 17280 x 12970.
>
> DUM DUM DUM DUM!
Do the math again, dum dum. You're missing a zero.
Fungusized
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:49:37 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
> <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On 22 Sep 2006 11:07:20 -0700, "Glorywest" <glor...@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There are many reasons you might need an image that big.
>>
>>...well no, actually. If you have an image that big you are simply a
>>fucking retard...there *IS NO* other explanation for it. *shrugs*
>>
>>
>>>When producing
>>>a photograph for a 6 x 3' poster
>>
>>A 6x3' poster eh? Well, let's do some math...
>>
>>72x36 inches...a print dpi of...let's say 150 (kinda high for yer
>>average tweeny bopper poster print I know, but I'm humoring your
>>deficiency here)...
>>
>>72x150=1080
>>36x150=5400
>>
>>So, for a poster of that size printing at the maximum dpi/ppi that you
>>SHOULD be using for optimal quality yer lookin at an image no larger
>>than 1080x5400...and the op (who DID NOT specify that it was even FOR
>>a poster) has an image that's - 17280 x 12970.
>
>
> Slight correction, that should read 10,800 not 1,080, however that's
> still about HALF the size of what the OP was claiming.
>
Glad you caught your own mistake.
Oh, btw, the 6x3 claim was just an EXAMPLE.
If you do a little math, you'll see his image is a 4:3 ratio, that is at
it's smallest (at 300 dpi) only 4 feet by 3 feet. At 150 dpi, it'd be
roughly an 8x6 foot image. Looks/sounds like a convention poster to me.
(if you've ever been to a comic convention, they have 8x6 posters, and
much, much larger. Up to 15 foot posters. And since they contain
artwork, they're not vector, so the file sizes are HUGE).
SO really, stop being a know-it-all. You have no idea what he's using
the image for. For all you know it could be a 10 dpi crappy resolution
picture that's about 144x108 feet in dimension.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
The point you're missing is that it's a STUPIDITY vs NOT stupid issue.
Yes, I have no doubt that there are an INCREDIBLY large number of
retarded morons out there with GIANT fucking files on their
computers...but the POINT is that they don't need them to BE that big.
WHEN YOU PRINT you can set the percentage of enlargement to blow up
the image (as well as rotate it and a number of other options). There
WOULD NOT be ANY SENSE in keeping some giant fucking over enlarged
image on your computer system. I mean, are you REALLY so fucking DUMB
that you think these artwork posters were drawn on a 15 foot fucking
canvas at 300dpi? o_O
...I dunno...maybe someone is gonna like stop by later and start
handing out awards for the being the biggest retard and you just wanna
try and set yerself up as a front runner... *shrugs*
Fungusized
No, they were printed at 300 dpi. You like to twist words to make
yourself sound smarter. Doesn't work when posts are archived, lad. The
more you post, the more you exemplify what Glorywest was saying. You
seem to have no grasp whatsoever how print works. I'm done with this
discussion. It's like trying to teach a baby calculus.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>> The point you're missing is that it's a STUPIDITY vs NOT stupid issue.
>> Yes, I have no doubt that there are an INCREDIBLY large number of
>> retarded morons out there with GIANT fucking files on their
>> computers...but the POINT is that they don't need them to BE that big.
>> WHEN YOU PRINT you can set the percentage of enlargement to blow up
>> the image (as well as rotate it and a number of other options). There
>> WOULD NOT be ANY SENSE in keeping some giant fucking over enlarged
>> image on your computer system. I mean, are you REALLY so fucking DUMB
>> that you think these artwork posters were drawn on a 15 foot fucking
>> canvas at 300dpi? o_O
>No, they were printed at 300 dpi.
Yes, but first they were ENLARGED...which as I said is fucking stupid
since that should be done DURING the print process (didja just miss
the enlargement option).
>You like to twist words to make yourself sound smarter.
No dumbass, I'm not twisting anything, I'm exposing the REALITY of
what you're saying, I'm showing you WHAT YOU DON'T COMPREHEND about
what it is that you're talking about.
You're claiming that those 15 foot art posters are printed at 300 dpi,
which means they have an ACTUAL PIXEL RESOLUTION of 54,000 x 54,000
(assuming it's square). Now, IF THEY HAVE a pixel resolution of that
size then ONE of two things occurred...
1. they enlarged the image in the graphics program, then
printed...fucking stupid since you can do that from the print dialogue
box and it's a whole fuck of a lot faster and more efficient.
or
2. they drew the ORIGINAL graphic on the computer at 54,000 x 54,000
(maybe they just used REALLY large brushes..LOL)
Now, IF THEY DID do number two...then ya, it would be perfectly
acceptable to have a file that large...however making the file itself
would be beyond stupid if we're talking about single object contents
that are individually taking up more than 5% of the total canvas. IF
the image subject content was relatively small compared to the overall
canvas size with just a WHOLE LOT of them (like say if you wanted to
print out several hundred/thousand comic strips on a single poster)
but even then I would argue that in most cases it would make more
sense to break it up into smaller image segments and then do multiple
prints (essentially what they do on billboards).
The only other possibility I can see that just wouldn't be plainly
fucking dumb is if you had a scan of some gigantor piece of like
Renaissance art work that was done up on some gigantor 15 foot canvas
and you wanted to preserve a copy for archivical purposes...that
really wouldn't be something you'd go around printing though, it'd be
for the sole purpose of historical archiving.
>Doesn't work when posts are archived, lad.
The only thing that's being archived here is how fucking DUMB you are
for not comprehending any of this and needing me to point it out to
you.
>The more you post, the more you exemplify what Glorywest was saying.
The more you run at the mouth and ignore the valid arguments and facts
of my posts, the more like Glorywest you look...which is eight shades
of ass raping Jesus stupid.
>You seem to have no grasp whatsoever how print works.
And yet YOUR the one runnin at the mouth while *I'M* the one who is
ACTUALLY EXPLAINING THE PROCESS. What...did ya think nobody was gonna
notice? LOL
>I'm done with this discussion.
Retard, you were done before you even got started. At this point
you're merely the exclamation mark in my pointing out what a gawd damn
retard Gloryn00b is.
>It's like trying to teach a baby calculus.
Yes it is like trying to teach you (a baby) calculus. Again, in case
you hadn't notice *I'M* the one offering the raw number, examples,
facts and comparisons...you're just runnin the fuck at the mouth
screaming, "NO YOU'RE WRONG!" *rolls eyes*
salami met bami
I have no fucking idear how printing works.
I have no idear why you people make such a big agument about it?
I also don`t understand why a sign has to about half the size
of the message?
But I am a dumbass, and I like to dabble in vector arts.
And yes I never set a plan and just go with the flow when
I play around and let chance do it`s work, so I will never be a designer
for it is not the way I work, but I love to hear how designers do it, you
never know, I might learn something.(I doubt it, but you never know ;o) )
I do know that argments that seem utherly useless also
occur here, like in any other newsgroup.
I also found out that designers hate competitions, it lowers
their trade, or something like that.
I use them for inspiration to play and see, and they don`t like my work,
and they state it and I keep telling them that I don`t make it for their
competition
but I use it as a starting point for my inspiration, still they have to
comment
that they don`t like it, like I was working for them. They never learn.
(it was in a graphics forum)
So competitions are fun, but the ones wanting them are obviously morons.
(BUt I got some nice idears out of em.)
So a small introduction of a total smackhead, and a uther amateur.;o)
Fred Doyle
>
> Yes, but first they were ENLARGED...which as I said is fucking stupid
> since that should be done DURING the print process (didja just miss
> the enlargement option).
>
> 1. they enlarged the image in the graphics program, then
> printed...fucking stupid since you can do that from the print dialogue
> box and it's a whole fuck of a lot faster and more efficient.
>
Would you be implying that there isn't a quality difference between an
enlargement done at the print dialogue box and one done in a program
like Photoshop or Paintshop Pro?
Might the quality difference be a rational reason for trying to create
the large image prior to printing?
--
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
It depends on what sort of resizing technique is being used...also
depends on the printer/print software. I can't imagine though that
any piece of print software out there is gonna be blowing it up using
like nearest neighbor resizing (if it is you may wanna get a better
printer). I'm kinda partial to Lanczos3 myself as oppose to simply
using bicubic. You do have more resizing options within the graphics
program itself, however that has more relavence for material that's
going to be viewed ON the computer. Like I can notice a difference
between Lanczos3 and bicubic on screen, but looking at two
prints...pretty much identical. And the quality difference that I can
notice on screen...not something that yer average viewer is ever gonna
realize, to them they'll look identical regardless.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
SpaceGirl
Agreeds - this is what we use, and reguarly for extremely large images.
Incidentally for print, but shhhh don't tell Hatter, he'll get all
worked up again :)
Onideus Mad Hatter
<nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
Provide an example, Spacey...then I can rip it apart. `, )
SpaceGirl
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> >Agreeds - this is what we use, and reguarly for extremely large images.
> >Incidentally for print, but shhhh don't tell Hatter, he'll get all
> >worked up again :)
>
> Provide an example, Spacey...then I can rip it apart. `, )
>
Hehhe well I dont work on that side of the business, but I know our
print guys deal with some pretty huge files (my day "client" print
millions of pages a day, posters, books, and directories - all over the
world). Most of it is 300 dpi, but sometimes super-quality files come
through (600dpi, or more) and building-sized prints - litterally
building sized. There's one of our posters a few blocks from this
office and it's about 6 stories tall, maybe 20 meters wide. It's not
handled as a single file though, and they are scaled up from the
original file. However, we're still looking at files many gb in size
(albeit TIFF, which aren't small files) and 100,000 pixels+ in size.
I think, though, this is pretty exceptional. There aren't many people
who do what we do. I can't see any reason why someone would normally
want to print over 300dpi (and for very large posters, 150 dpi will
do).
Personally I work on the Web side of things where DPI is irrelevant! We
do always work double sized though - every graphic we do we build
over-large and scale down for the web. This means we're never stuck
trying to scale up for web displays if someone changes their mind on
artwork, or we have to take our web work and print it (scale up 72dpi
web work for a printer looks awful).
:)
Onideus Mad Hatter
<nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>Hehhe well I dont work on that side of the business, but I know our
>print guys deal with some pretty huge files (my day "client" print
>millions of pages a day, posters, books, and directories - all over the
>world). Most of it is 300 dpi, but sometimes super-quality files come
>through (600dpi, or more) and building-sized prints - litterally
>building sized. There's one of our posters a few blocks from this
>office and it's about 6 stories tall, maybe 20 meters wide. It's not
>handled as a single file though, and they are scaled up from the
>original file. However, we're still looking at files many gb in size
>(albeit TIFF, which aren't small files) and 100,000 pixels+ in size.
>
>I think, though, this is pretty exceptional. There aren't many people
>who do what we do. I can't see any reason why someone would normally
>want to print over 300dpi (and for very large posters, 150 dpi will
>do).
Again you're missing the point though. It's a question of stupidity
vs not stupidity. They OBVIOUSLY are not creating a building size
piece of artwork from scratch on the computer at 600 fuckin DPI...I
mean for one that'd take you YEARS just to draw it out! o_O
What they're doing is taking a SMALL IMAGE and then RESIZING IT...the
thing is, instead of letting the print software handle that upon
PRINTING for some idiot reason they resize it BEFORE HAND and for
another idiot reason they'll STORE IT like that afterwards...which
doesn't make any fucking sense...AT ALL.
>Personally I work on the Web side of things where DPI is irrelevant!
...well...kinda. You SHOULD try and keep in mind the various
resolutions and how they look on different sized monitors. However if
you're just designing around a single base resolution/monitor size
then I guess it doesn't matter too much.
>We do always work double sized though - every graphic we do we build
>over-large and scale down for the web. This means we're never stuck
>trying to scale up for web displays if someone changes their mind on
>artwork, or we have to take our web work and print it (scale up 72dpi
>web work for a printer looks awful).
...then don't. Your images ARE NOT 72 dpi...that's an arbitrary
number, it's meaningless. All that really matters is the ACTUAL PIXEL
SIZE, the DPI just determines how big or small it's going to print in
relation to that pixel size. It may not take up the WHOLE page if
you're printing as 150 dpi, but at least it'll look nice. Plus you'll
save on ink.
The problem I see with making large images and then scaling them down
is that you might be losing more quality overall if you had simply
made them for the resolution/monitor size that the customer originally
picked...especially if you're talking about using filters in which the
pixel area GREATLY affects how they work. To me it's more important
to simply track the methodology because then I can rebuild it at any
resolution aftwards with little effort. Not to mention if a customer
does wind up changing their mind AFTER the fact...they should be
paying for that.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Aaron
> On 25 Sep 2006 05:57:21 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>
> The problem I see with making large images and then scaling them down
> is that you might be losing more quality overall if you had simply
> made them for the resolution/monitor size that the customer originally
> picked...especially if you're talking about using filters in which the
> pixel area GREATLY affects how they work. To me it's more important
> to simply track the methodology because then I can rebuild it at any
> resolution aftwards with little effort. Not to mention if a customer
> does wind up changing their mind AFTER the fact...they should be
> paying for that.
I think the best possible way to build little widget/icon graphics for
the web, if there is a possibility of re-tasking later on, is to just
use Illustrator. With Illustrator CS, there is very little you can't
achieve in terms of effects, and of course it's vector, so the sky's the
limit when it comes to creating your raster versions.
BUT, if you DO want to use photoshop, I think SpaceGirl has established
a good policy building the files at twice the intended size. You
actually have a lot of control over how the finalized images will look
by using the resampling options (sharper, smoother) in Photoshop to get
your final, plus you typically get nice, consistent anti-aliasing.
I personally prefer the Illustrator approach, but when I am hashing out
layouts for a site in Photoshop I use a lot of shape layers because I am
comfortable with paths and it gives me the most flexibility when it
comes time to revise and make changes.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
Well with Vector stuff it doesn't really matter, you're essentially
making for infinite size. I'm talking about the use of filters, like
if you wanted to create a wood, glass, brushed metal, etc, etc, etc
look. For example if you wanted a wood grain look, if you're applyin
the filter to a really large area the wood pattern is going to look
small in comparison to the other elements and will have a higher level
of repetition, then when you resize it down it might not actually look
like wood at all. Where as if you had applied the filter to a smaller
area there would be less repetition of the patter and the pattern
would look larger in comparison to the whole...so basically if you're
working with filter effects you need to keep that sort of stuff in
mind. I've found that many times my methodologies for creating
certain effects and looks using filters will ONLY work correctly using
say fonts of a certain size, otherwise you need to significantly alter
the methodology. For example:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Semi-Transparent_Text_Technique.png
If you try applying that technique to a larger font size, say 72, yer
gonna find that it doesn't look ANYTHING like it does using a font
size of 48.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> It depends on what sort of resizing technique is being used...also
> depends on the printer/print software.
For most printer drivers, you probably don't know or can't tell what they
are using as a resizing algorithm and there is no opportunity for adjustment
to the algorith in any print driver I am aware of.
> I can't imagine though that
> any piece of print software out there is gonna be blowing it up using
> like nearest neighbor resizing (if it is you may wanna get a better
> printer). I'm kinda partial to Lanczos3 myself as oppose to simply
> using bicubic.
Then you need to resize before printing cuz as I understand it, the most
common printer driver algorithm for resizing is bicubic (
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-interpolation.htm ).
Bicubic resizing with no control is what you get from most printer drivers
from what I've read, because it is a good trade off between its processing
demands and quality of result. So at the print dialogue box you don't get
the control that even Photoshop offers with its relatively limited resizing
techniques and options.
Funny, the free software like GIMP and Irfanview both offer Lanczos
resizing, but not Photoshop or PS Pro
> Like I can notice a difference
> between Lanczos3 and bicubic on screen, but looking at two
> prints...pretty much identical.
Even if the printed image is 9 feet high? I've been able to see the
difference as have a number of other people I work with when dealing with
large environmental graphics and extreme resizing.
> And the quality difference that I can
> notice on screen...not something that yer average viewer is ever gonna
> realize, to them they'll look identical regardless.
You'd be amazed what people can "see" even if they don't notice, especially
when dealing with environmental graphics that are huge and that they have to
live with.
Fred Doyle
SpaceGirl
Agreed.
>
>> Personally I work on the Web side of things where DPI is irrelevant!
>
> ...well...kinda. You SHOULD try and keep in mind the various
> resolutions and how they look on different sized monitors. However if
> you're just designing around a single base resolution/monitor size
> then I guess it doesn't matter too much.
>
Yes. Pixel resolution is important, but DPI isn't.
>> We do always work double sized though - every graphic we do we build
>> over-large and scale down for the web. This means we're never stuck
>> trying to scale up for web displays if someone changes their mind on
>> artwork, or we have to take our web work and print it (scale up 72dpi
>> web work for a printer looks awful).
>
> ...then don't. Your images ARE NOT 72 dpi...that's an arbitrary
> number, it's meaningless. All that really matters is the ACTUAL PIXEL
> SIZE, the DPI just determines how big or small it's going to print in
> relation to that pixel size. It may not take up the WHOLE page if
> you're printing as 150 dpi, but at least it'll look nice. Plus you'll
> save on ink.
That was the point I was making. 14" display, 800 x 600 = roughly 72dpi.
And how many people have screens that size or resolution these days?
> The problem I see with making large images and then scaling them down
> is that you might be losing more quality overall if you had simply
> made them for the resolution/monitor size that the customer originally
> picked...especially if you're talking about using filters in which the
> pixel area GREATLY affects how they work. To me it's more important
> to simply track the methodology because then I can rebuild it at any
> resolution aftwards with little effort. Not to mention if a customer
> does wind up changing their mind AFTER the fact...they should be
> paying for that.
It very much depends on the image, but I agree. If possible (where the
brief is very strict, and little chance of change) designs for screen
can be pixel-sized (unless working for fluid vector based stuff).
More and more of our work is Flash based, so the majority of our work is
coming out of Illustrator where all this becomes fairly moot anyway.
The print side of the company pretty uses EPS (vector format) with
300dpi embedded PhotoShop'd TIFFs.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>For most printer drivers, you probably don't know or can't tell what they
>are using as a resizing algorithm and there is no opportunity for adjustment
>to the algorith in any print driver I am aware of.
Well it might be a good idea to test your printers capabilities.
First take an image and resize it (say at 200% of the original size)
in a graphics program and then make a print. Then take the original
graphic and have it blown up 200% upon printing by the print software,
then examine the two prints. If you can't notice any real difference,
then don't waste your time/system resources resizing it in the
graphics proggie.
In either event though the big thing is not to STORE them like that,
it wouldn't make any sense to blow up an image, print it and then save
it blown up like that, cause yer just wasting space.
Also I'm fairly certain that any modern day printer is going to be
using some form of smart resizing, in that if you make it smaller
it'll use bilinear and if you make it bigger it'll use bicubic.
>> I can't imagine though that
>> any piece of print software out there is gonna be blowing it up using
>> like nearest neighbor resizing (if it is you may wanna get a better
>> printer). I'm kinda partial to Lanczos3 myself as oppose to simply
>> using bicubic.
>Then you need to resize before printing cuz as I understand it, the most
>common printer driver algorithm for resizing is bicubic (
>http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-interpolation.htm ).
Well that's fine if you're blowing it up.
>Bicubic resizing with no control is what you get from most printer drivers
>from what I've read, because it is a good trade off between its processing
>demands and quality of result. So at the print dialogue box you don't get
>the control that even Photoshop offers with its relatively limited resizing
>techniques and options.
Not really, Photoshop simply offers you the option of applying a
sharpen or a smoothing filter to the bicubic resized image...you can
do the same with most print software, with HP there's an option called
"HP digital photography options", where you can smooth/sharpen the
image during printing. It'll essentially give you the same result.
>Funny, the free software like GIMP and Irfanview both offer Lanczos
>resizing, but not Photoshop or PS Pro
Yeah it's weird cause a lot of teh graphics apps are last to be
picking it up, it was first used in video editing and rendering apps
like Lightwave, VirtualDub and AviSynth.
>> Like I can notice a difference
>> between Lanczos3 and bicubic on screen, but looking at two
>> prints...pretty much identical.
>Even if the printed image is 9 feet high?
Even better! The bigger you make it the harder it'll be to tell due
to human vision limitations. The bigger you make it, the farther back
you're going to have to stand to see it as a whole and the farther
back you stand the less detail your eyes are going to be able to pick
up.
>I've been able to see the
>difference as have a number of other people I work with when dealing with
>large environmental graphics and extreme resizing.
Well it depends on the image, if there's a high degree of moiré then
making it larger is only going to magnify that problem...in which case
you might be forced to enlarge it in a graphics app in order to make
more intricate corrections. Like first enlarging it and then using
masking techniques to select off specific areas to either smooth/blur
or sharpen (essentially taking bicubic blur/sharpen to a human edited
level). The trick to avoiding all that though is to use good stock
footage/photos that weren't saved in a format that was using lossy
compression. Most of yer problems like that are gonna come from shit
encoded JPEG files.
>> And the quality difference that I can
>> notice on screen...not something that yer average viewer is ever gonna
>> realize, to them they'll look identical regardless.
>You'd be amazed what people can "see" even if they don't notice, especially
>when dealing with environmental graphics that are huge and that they have to
>live with.
I dunno about that, when I was in college I did a few polls for an
English paper I wrote on graphic design. In one of the polls I took
two images, one resized using bicubic and the other resized using
Lanczos and went around asking people which image they thought "looked
better" in about half the responses the opinion was "they're the same"
in the rest it was as if they were just randomly picking one,
believing that one must be better than the other (ie like a reverse
trick question) and didn't want to appear like they didn't know any
better so I wound up with like 23% saying picture 1 and 27% saying
picture 2. The conclusion was that unless you spent a lot of time
working with graphics and were trained to notice minute visual
differences that the images would appear nearly identical to most
people.
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote >
> Well it might be a good idea to test your printers capabilities.
> First take an image and resize it (say at 200% of the original size)
> in a graphics program and then make a print. Then take the original
> graphic and have it blown up 200% upon printing by the print software,
> then examine the two prints.
>>I've been able to see the
>>difference as have a number of other people I work with when dealing with
>>large environmental graphics and extreme resizing.
Been there, done that. That's how I know some people could see the
difference.
> HP there's an option called
> "HP digital photography options", where you can smooth/sharpen the
> image during printing. It'll essentially give you the same result.
Not on the HP Designjet 800, 42 inch roll feed printer. I use one a lot at
work. It is an HP printer intended for large output. Sounds like you are
talking about an HP photo printer.
> Even better! The bigger you make it the harder it'll be to tell due
> to human vision limitations. The bigger you make it, the farther back
> you're going to have to stand to see it as a whole and the farther
> back you stand the less detail your eyes are going to be able to pick
> up.
Not true with environmental type graphics where vieweres are at varying
distances to the print, even up close. Think bus shelter type posters,
museum walls, etc. where people are wlaking through an environemnt and the
graphics are part of that environment.
> Well it depends on the image, if there's a high degree of moiré then
> making it larger is only going to magnify that problem...in which case
> you might be forced to enlarge it in a graphics app in order to make
> more intricate corrections.
Been there dealt with that.
> Most of yer problems like that are gonna come from shit
> encoded JPEG files.
yup, worst case secenario
> The conclusion was that unless you spent a lot of time
> working with graphics and were trained to notice minute visual
> differences that the images would appear nearly identical to most
> people.
Or if you spend a lot of time living with the graphics; bus shelters where
people are forced to look at them for a time every day for example, or lobby
walls.
Fred Doyle
Aaron
Which is another good reason to use Photoshop's shape layers with layer
blending options to apply things like textures, because then later when
you resize the image (with Image Size), you can choose whether or not to
scale styles (with the Scale Styles checkbox). In other words, if you
have your wood grain texture applied through a layer style and it would
look terrible if it were smaller, you can uncheck "scale styles," and it
will resize the AREA without resizing the texture. It's like they
thought of everything.
Of course, in my experience, a lot of people don't even REALIZE the
kinds of things you can do with layer styles, let alone plan ahead for
re-tasking of images or build images in a way that allows for maximum
flexibility.
Also, I know you use PSP, but I have virtually no experience there, so I
can't really comment on potential methods. Everyone has their own
approach.
Aaron
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:36:26 -0400, "Fred Doyle"
> <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> For most printer drivers, you probably don't know or can't tell what
they
>> are using as a resizing algorithm and there is no opportunity for
adjustment
>> to the algorith in any print driver I am aware of.
>
> Well it might be a good idea to test your printers capabilities.
> First take an image and resize it (say at 200% of the original size)
> in a graphics program and then make a print. Then take the original
> graphic and have it blown up 200% upon printing by the print software,
> then examine the two prints. If you can't notice any real difference,
> then don't waste your time/system resources resizing it in the
> graphics proggie.
In my opinion, if you are a professional, you don't quibble about system
resources or how long it takes, you do whatever gives you the best
results. If you have to buy a machine with 16 gigs of RAM to resize
building-size images because that's what you do for a living, then
that's just the cost of doing business.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:36:26 -0400, "Fred Doyle"
> > <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> For most printer drivers, you probably don't know or can't tell what
>they
> >> are using as a resizing algorithm and there is no opportunity for
>adjustment
> >> to the algorith in any print driver I am aware of.
> >
> > Well it might be a good idea to test your printers capabilities.
> > First take an image and resize it (say at 200% of the original size)
> > in a graphics program and then make a print. Then take the original
> > graphic and have it blown up 200% upon printing by the print software,
> > then examine the two prints. If you can't notice any real difference,
> > then don't waste your time/system resources resizing it in the
> > graphics proggie.
>
>In my opinion, if you are a professional, you don't quibble about system
>resources or how long it takes, you do whatever gives you the best
>results. If you have to buy a machine with 16 gigs of RAM to resize
>building-size images because that's what you do for a living, then
>that's just the cost of doing business.
Yes but that would make you a fucking moron. ^_^
Part of being SUCCESSFUL in business is finding ways of saving
money...and there's NO SENSE in spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of
dollars that you didn't even NEED to spend had you been slightly less
fucking DUMB. *shrugs*
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Which is another good reason to use Photoshop's shape layers with layer
>blending options to apply things like textures, because then later when
>you resize the image (with Image Size), you can choose whether or not to
>scale styles (with the Scale Styles checkbox). In other words, if you
>have your wood grain texture applied through a layer style and it would
>look terrible if it were smaller, you can uncheck "scale styles," and it
>will resize the AREA without resizing the texture. It's like they
>thought of everything.
On a very basic/n00b level that might work okay, but with more
intricate stuff...no. A lot of times you NEED those textures to not
be...theoretical, I guess would be a good way of calling it. You need
them to be solid/real so that you can further manipulate them WITH
OTHER FILTER EFFECTS. Very rarely (if ever) do I use a single basic
filter effect..mostly because the look is often very pedestrian and
cliche. And simply layering the multiple filter effects does not work
since a lot of filters rely on existing image content ON the layer
they're being applied to. Then again I'm not exactly using like
default Photoshop filter effects, which also throws yer argument out
the window altogether. A lot of the filter effects I use are from
Alien Skin, Axion, Flaming Pear, FM File Tools, Dominion, etc, etc,
etc.
My quote for the day...
"Think outside the Photoshop." ^_^
>Of course, in my experience, a lot of people don't even REALIZE the
>kinds of things you can do with layer styles, let alone plan ahead for
>re-tasking of images or build images in a way that allows for maximum
>flexibility.
I fully realize what you can do with layer styles...but then I also
fully realize what you CAN'T do with them. ^_^
Knowing the limitations of your software is a sign that you've
mastered it, not knowing means that you're still learning.
>Also, I know you use PSP, but I have virtually no experience there, so I
>can't really comment on potential methods. Everyone has their own
>approach.
I actually use a whole variety of different software tools, third
party filters and even a few of my own custom filters as well as
hacked filters. Like sometimes I'll find a really neat third party
filter for like VirtualDub (most of which have the source code
available) so then I'll adapt it into a PSP/PS filter.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Aaron
But come on, how cool would THAT workstation be? You could install the
OS INTO RAM. Hell, you could also install Photoshop into RAM.
Nobody ever rose above his peers in the design industry by cutting
corners.
Aaron
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:19:44 -0400, Aaron <aa...@thebailiwick.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Which is another good reason to use Photoshop's shape layers with layer
>> blending options to apply things like textures, because then later when
>> you resize the image (with Image Size), you can choose whether or not to
>> scale styles (with the Scale Styles checkbox). In other words, if you
>> have your wood grain texture applied through a layer style and it would
>> look terrible if it were smaller, you can uncheck "scale styles," and it
>> will resize the AREA without resizing the texture. It's like they
>> thought of everything.
>
> On a very basic/n00b level that might work okay, but with more
> intricate stuff...no. A lot of times you NEED those textures to not
> be...theoretical, I guess would be a good way of calling it. You need
> them to be solid/real so that you can further manipulate them WITH
> OTHER FILTER EFFECTS. Very rarely (if ever) do I use a single basic
> filter effect..mostly because the look is often very pedestrian and
> cliche. And simply layering the multiple filter effects does not work
> since a lot of filters rely on existing image content ON the layer
> they're being applied to. Then again I'm not exactly using like
> default Photoshop filter effects, which also throws yer argument out
> the window altogether. A lot of the filter effects I use are from
> Alien Skin, Axion, Flaming Pear, FM File Tools, Dominion, etc, etc,
> etc.
Textures applied through my method are not "theoretical." It is also
possible to use adjustment layers clipped to the shape layers to add
effects to them without affecting the surrounding area.
I thought we were talking about ways to make your design tolerant to
scaling without messing it all up. Clipping masks will be scaled along
with the image, as will the shapes of shape layers. My point was that
you can allow the document to scale without scaling the texture itself,
if that is a problem.
Here is a demo image for you:
http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/scaling_one.jpg
For demonstration purposes I used a 50 pixel grid as the texture. Here
it is now scaled to 50% using Image Size with the Scale Styles option
disabled. Notice that the background, which is just a simple fill, is
scaled down, whereas the texture of the "A" is not scaled, because it is
a layer style:
http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/scaling_two.jpg
This technique has come in handy for me when I have to scale images
because I can precisely control which parts ought to be scaled and which
ought not.
I can show you how I would apply "other filter effects" to the layer
style's texture, too, if you really want to know, but such a simple
thing should be easy for a professional such as yourself.
As I said before, techniques vary by individual and software, but maybe
someone like SpaceGirl will find this tip useful.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
Do you think your clients and customers are going to give a fuck about
how cool YOU THINK your computers are?
>Nobody ever rose above his peers in the design industry by cutting
>corners.
...well yeah, actually they do all the time. Why do you think there
are so many of those template pusher sites floatin around these days?
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
> > On a very basic/n00b level that might work okay, but with more
> > intricate stuff...no. A lot of times you NEED those textures to not
> > be...theoretical, I guess would be a good way of calling it. You need
> > them to be solid/real so that you can further manipulate them WITH
> > OTHER FILTER EFFECTS. Very rarely (if ever) do I use a single basic
> > filter effect..mostly because the look is often very pedestrian and
> > cliche. And simply layering the multiple filter effects does not work
> > since a lot of filters rely on existing image content ON the layer
> > they're being applied to. Then again I'm not exactly using like
> > default Photoshop filter effects, which also throws yer argument out
> > the window altogether. A lot of the filter effects I use are from
> > Alien Skin, Axion, Flaming Pear, FM File Tools, Dominion, etc, etc,
> > etc.
>Textures applied through my method are not "theoretical." It is also
>possible to use adjustment layers clipped to the shape layers to add
>effects to them without affecting the surrounding area.
...you didn't understand what I said. You'll figure it out
eventually, until then it'd be a waste of my time (as well as yours)
to try and explain something you're not yet currently capable of
grasping.
>I thought we were talking about ways to make your design tolerant to
>scaling without messing it all up.
Yes, you talked about a way of doing that, I debunked it.
>Clipping masks will be scaled along
>with the image, as will the shapes of shape layers.
...that has nothing to do with what I said.
>My point was that
>you can allow the document to scale without scaling the texture itself,
>if that is a problem.
And as I said on a very basic/n00b level that would work.
>Here is a demo image for you:
>http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/scaling_one.jpg
>
>For demonstration purposes I used a 50 pixel grid as the texture. Here
>it is now scaled to 50% using Image Size with the Scale Styles option
>disabled. Notice that the background, which is just a simple fill, is
>scaled down, whereas the texture of the "A" is not scaled, because it is
>a layer style:
>http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/scaling_two.jpg
>
>This technique has come in handy for me when I have to scale images
>because I can precisely control which parts ought to be scaled and which
>ought not.
>
>I can show you how I would apply "other filter effects" to the layer
>style's texture, too, if you really want to know, but such a simple
>thing should be easy for a professional such as yourself.
>
>As I said before, techniques vary by individual and software, but maybe
>someone like SpaceGirl will find this tip useful.
If I'm in the mood later, I'll put up an example of what you don't
currently understand.
Fred Doyle
> Part of being SUCCESSFUL in business ....
>
Why do I feel like listening to you expound on the topic of "how to
succeed in business" a little like listening to the my favorite garage
band sing their big song? They sound OK in a small venue and you might
even be able to dance to it a little, but they still need to make a
record before anybody will really listen to them.
Just asking
--
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
Because you're an idiot? *shrugs* I'm not exactly sharing the
secrets of life here or anything or how to "get rich quick", I'm
pointing out the "no duh" common sense stuff. Unless of course you're
idiot enough to think spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that
you didn't actually need to is a good idea...in which case, hey, go
for it d00d!
salami met bami
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> schreef in bericht
news:9k2mh293pc3fa7as1...@4ax.com...
No, but if you advertise, you state that you have state of the art equipment
and give an example, do you really think they know that you don`t really
need it?
They probably go, WOW. Not all your customers are totally rational or have
a clue. ;o)
Onideus Mad Hatter
And if they didn't have a clue then what would stop you from simply
SAYING that you've got teh stuff? Or, even better, just use techno
buzz words like "state-of-the-art", you don't ACTUALLY need to go into
detail...in fact in most cases that'll just confuse the customer cause
they'll have no idea what yer techno gibberish means (and they may
even misinterpret the name of whatever it is to mean something else).
UprightCitizen
Hatter's produced something worthy of being printed?????? NOW THIS I GOTTA
SEE
Davémon
>>> and there's NO SENSE in spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of
>>> dollars that you didn't even NEED to spend had you been slightly less
>>> fucking DUMB. *shrugs*
>
>>But come on, how cool would THAT workstation be? You could install the
>>OS INTO RAM. Hell, you could also install Photoshop into RAM.
For that money I'd want to load my brain into RAM and it can do all the
bleeding work!
I just max-ed out Apple's Mac Pro and it came to £12,730 which isn't
anywhere near HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars:
* Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
* 16GB (8 x 2GB)
* 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
* Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
* Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel) DUAL SCREEN
* Two 16x SuperDrives (DVD/CD writing)
* Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme
* Fibre Channel Card
* Apple USB Modem
* Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
* Mac OS X - U.S. English
* Final Cut Express HD preinstalled
* AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro/Power Mac (w/or w/o Display)
Which begs the question - is there a more expensive computer out there
you could buy to do GD with? and what other high-end, over-spec'd GD
equipment have people got/want - Art Directors Box of Pantone Tria
markers? complete collection of official Fuzzy-Felt(tm) sets? antique
letter-presses?
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>For that money I'd want to load my brain into RAM and it can do all the
>bleeding work!
>
>I just max-ed out Apple's Mac Pro and it came to Ł12,730 which isn't
>anywhere near HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars:
>
> * Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
> * 16GB (8 x 2GB)
> * 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
> * 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
> * 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
> * 500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
> * NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
> * Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
> * Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel) DUAL SCREEN
> * Two 16x SuperDrives (DVD/CD writing)
> * Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme
> * Fibre Channel Card
> * Apple USB Modem
> * Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
> * Mac OS X - U.S. English
> * Final Cut Express HD preinstalled
> * AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro/Power Mac (w/or w/o Display)
>
>Which begs the question - is there a more expensive computer out there
>you could buy to do GD with? and what other high-end, over-spec'd GD
>equipment have people got/want - Art Directors Box of Pantone Tria
>markers? complete collection of official Fuzzy-Felt(tm) sets? antique
>letter-presses?
Think outside the candy-colored Mac shit box, d00d:
http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/index.html
Mmmm...SGI Altix 4000 super cluster...128 terabytes of shared global
memory, a few HUNDRED Intel Itanium II processors, 512 petabytes of
storage space, 6.4 gigabit data channels with 1 microsecond
latency...*shudder*...oh I've got the tingles.
...course that'll cost you a WHOLE lot more than a few hundred
thousand...plus if you wanted to do a LOT of high end rendering work
you'd need more than one.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fred Doyle
> think spending hundreds of thousands of dollars
Hmmm, if your business acumen leads you to believe you need to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a computer with enough
processing power to resize images efficiently, I'm not surprised you
have no business record on which to draw when giving business advice.
BTW, I've got some pens I'll sell you for your business needs, too. Only
$2,000 each.
--
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Hmmm, if your business acumen leads you to believe you need to spend
>hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a computer with enough
>processing power to resize images efficiently, I'm not surprised you
>have no business record on which to draw when giving business advice.
No, no Stupid, see that's what the OTHER guy I was RESPONDING TO was
saying...and you were AGREEING WITH HIM. DUM DUM DUM DUM!
...apparently "stupid" was quite an apt description of you.
>BTW, I've got some pens I'll sell you for your business needs, too. Only
>$2,000 each.
You paid $5,000 each for them originally, huh?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fred Doyle
> No, no Stupid, see that's what the OTHER guy I was RESPONDING TO was
> saying.
Aaron wrote:
> In my opinion, if you are a professional, you don't quibble about system
> resources or how long it takes, you do whatever gives you the best
> results. If you have to buy a machine with 16 gigs of RAM to resize
> building-size images because that's what you do for a living, then
> that's just the cost of doing business.
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in response:
>> Part of being SUCCESSFUL in business is finding ways of saving
>> money...and there's NO SENSE in spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of
>> dollars that you didn't even NEED to spend had you been slightly less
>> fucking DUMB. *shrugs*
Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a machine with 16 gigs of memory is
what you said, not him. That's great business acumen you're showing.
Having trouble following the threads or do you just lose track of what
you write?
About those pens, sure, I spent $5000 on each, but this is a special
deal just for you. Interested?
--
Fred Doyle
Fred Doyle
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:50:10 GMT, Fred Doyle <fdo...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, if your business acumen leads you to believe you need to spend
>> hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a computer with enough
>> processing power to resize images efficiently, I'm not surprised you
>> have no business record on which to draw when giving business advice.
>
> No, no Stupid, see that's what the OTHER guy I was RESPONDING TO was
> saying.
Aaron wrote:
> In my opinion, if you are a professional, you don't quibble about system
> resources or how long it takes, you do whatever gives you the best
> results. If you have to buy a machine with 16 gigs of RAM to resize
> building-size images because that's what you do for a living, then
> that's just the cost of doing business.
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> Part of being SUCCESSFUL in business is finding ways of saving
>> money...and there's NO SENSE in spending HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of
>> dollars
No that would be what you said.
BTW
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/1.RSLID?mco=2CB5E8C0&nclm=MacPro
--
Fred Doyle
Aaron
I knew someone like Salami was going to come up in here and start trying
to PLACATE you with their CONJECTURES about what clients think.
Template pusher sites are NOT "rising above their peers" in the "design
industry." They are to graphic and web design what Wal*Mart is to
retail; an outlet peddling mediocre (at best) quality to the lowest
common denominator (which is a very large number of people/sites). Is
selling Dreamweaver templates profitable? Yes. Will they ever land any
kind of big deals from reputable companies? No, never. They're peddling
garbage. Sometimes garbage is what a person needs. Sometimes garbage is
all a person can afford.
That's not my area of the market. I sell my services to people with
taste, to people who have money. I think you know what I'm talking about
here.
This is a tangential discussion, anyway. If you're serious about the
work that you do, you do the best possible work you can because every
single thing you sell is an advertisement. If it takes expensive
equipment to do it, and if you are serious about doing it for a living,
you make it happen. It's called a "capital investment."
Aaron
>
> Think outside the candy-colored Mac shit box, d00d:
> http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/index.html
>
> Mmmm...SGI Altix 4000 super cluster...128 terabytes of shared global
> memory, a few HUNDRED Intel Itanium II processors, 512 petabytes of
> storage space, 6.4 gigabit data channels with 1 microsecond
> latency...*shudder*...oh I've got the tingles.
>
> ...course that'll cost you a WHOLE lot more than a few hundred
> thousand...plus if you wanted to do a LOT of high end rendering work
> you'd need more than one.
Mmm, yeah, you could get a lot of graphic design work done in LOONIX.
"This infrastructure is supported by a complete HPC solution stack
running on industry standard Linux operating systems with the choice of
Novell SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Advanced Server 4 operating systems."
Aaron
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:16:14 -0400, Aaron <aa...@thebailiwick.com>
> wrote:
>> Here is a demo image for you:
>> http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/scaling_one.jpg
>>
>> For demonstration purposes I used a 50 pixel grid as the texture.
>> Here it is now scaled to 50% using Image Size with the Scale Styles
>> option disabled. Notice that the background, which is just a simple
>> fill, is scaled down, whereas the texture of the "A" is not scaled,
>> because it is a layer style:
>> http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/scaling_two.jpg
>>
>> This technique has come in handy for me when I have to scale images
>> because I can precisely control which parts ought to be scaled and
>> which ought not.
>>
>> I can show you how I would apply "other filter effects" to the layer
>> style's texture, too, if you really want to know, but such a simple
>> thing should be easy for a professional such as yourself.
>>
>> As I said before, techniques vary by individual and software, but
>> maybe someone like SpaceGirl will find this tip useful.
>
> If I'm in the mood later, I'll put up an example of what you don't
> currently understand.
OMG WILL IT HAVE ALIENSKINZ FILTARZ USED IN IT?!!?K OMG LIKE FLAEMES!!??
Don't forget to apply copious bevel and emboss to all of your texturedez
shaepz, HATTAR.
Fred Doyle
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:08:32 +0100, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>For that money I'd want to load my brain into RAM and it can do all the
>>bleeding work!
>>
>>I just max-ed out Apple's Mac Pro and it came to £12,730 which isn't
>>anywhere near HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars:
>>
>> * Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
>> * 16GB (8 x 2GB)
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> Think outside the candy-colored Mac shit box, d00d:
> http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/index.html
>
> Mmmm...SGI Altix 4000 super cluster...128 terabytes of shared global
> memory, a few HUNDRED Intel Itanium II processors, 512 petabytes of
> storage space, 6.4 gigabit data channels with 1 microsecond
> latency...*shudder*...oh I've got the tingles.
>
> ...course that'll cost you a WHOLE lot more than a few hundred
> thousand...plus if you wanted to do a LOT of high end rendering work
> you'd need more than one.
>
That whooshing sound was the point going over Mathew's head.
Fred Doyle
SpaceGirl
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> Think outside the candy-colored Mac shit box, d00d:
> http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/index.html
>
> Mmmm...SGI Altix 4000 super cluster...128 terabytes of shared global
> memory, a few HUNDRED Intel Itanium II processors, 512 petabytes of
> storage space, 6.4 gigabit data channels with 1 microsecond
> latency...*shudder*...oh I've got the tingles.
>
> ...course that'll cost you a WHOLE lot more than a few hundred
> thousand...plus if you wanted to do a LOT of high end rendering work
> you'd need more than one.
No wonder SGI are chapter 11 (bankcrupt). ;)
SpaceGirl
You could get a much faster PC for less money though; also in November,
there are quad core Xeons available (but not for the Mac).
Still, if I had that kind of money... I'd buy a Mac.
Actually if I had that kind of money to waste I'd just have a laptop
and not be working! Sod big desktop PCs!
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:08:32 +0100, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>For that money I'd want to load my brain into RAM and it can do all the
>>>bleeding work!
>>>
>>>I just max-ed out Apple's Mac Pro and it came to Ł12,730 which isn't
>>>anywhere near HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars:
>>>
>>> * Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
>>> * 16GB (8 x 2GB)
>
>
>"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>
>> Think outside the candy-colored Mac shit box, d00d:
>> http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/index.html
>>
>> Mmmm...SGI Altix 4000 super cluster...128 terabytes of shared global
>> memory, a few HUNDRED Intel Itanium II processors, 512 petabytes of
>> storage space, 6.4 gigabit data channels with 1 microsecond
>> latency...*shudder*...oh I've got the tingles.
>>
>> ...course that'll cost you a WHOLE lot more than a few hundred
>> thousand...plus if you wanted to do a LOT of high end rendering work
>> you'd need more than one.
>>
>
>That whooshing sound was the point going over Mathew's head.
Hey Freddytard, if you're not fucking up...you're not doing anything.
You might wanna keep that in mind. ^_^
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:16:14 -0400, Aaron <aa...@thebailiwick.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Here is a demo image for you:
> >> http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/scaling_one.jpg
> >>
> >> For demonstration purposes I used a 50 pixel grid as the texture.
> >> Here it is now scaled to 50% using Image Size with the Scale Styles
> >> option disabled. Notice that the background, which is just a simple
> >> fill, is scaled down, whereas the texture of the "A" is not scaled,
> >> because it is a layer style:
> >> http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/scaling_two.jpg
> >>
> >> This technique has come in handy for me when I have to scale images
> >> because I can precisely control which parts ought to be scaled and
> >> which ought not.
> >>
> >> I can show you how I would apply "other filter effects" to the layer
> >> style's texture, too, if you really want to know, but such a simple
> >> thing should be easy for a professional such as yourself.
> >>
> >> As I said before, techniques vary by individual and software, but
> >> maybe someone like SpaceGirl will find this tip useful.
> >
> > If I'm in the mood later, I'll put up an example of what you don't
> > currently understand.
>
>OMG WILL IT HAVE ALIENSKINZ FILTARZ USED IN IT?!!?K OMG LIKE FLAEMES!!??
>Don't forget to apply copious bevel and emboss to all of your texturedez
>shaepz, HATTAR.
Even if I did It'd still look better than...well ANY of your...oh
wait, you don't really have any pure digital art. Mostly you've just
got shit you vector traced or scanned and then did a mediocre job of
coloring...that and a lot of text...a WHOLE lot of text...text, text
and yet MORE text. Apparently the point of your "web design" is to
try and BORE your users to death with REAMS of prolix verbage. It
really is too bad you couldn't have taken all the time you wasted
babbling on and applied it to ACTUALLY LEARNING DIGITAL ART...you
know, then maybe you'd be able to produce something that doesn't look
like a B average out of a failing computer graphics degree at some
horshit technical college.
*shrugs*
Just remember, I didn't make reality, I just beat you with it...and I
certainly wasn't the one who got you suckling at the Photoshop teet so
bad you start throwing a spazzy lil tantrum at the very thought of
weening off of it.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
Apparently you just didn't take enough RITALIN this morning, huh
Freddytard? That whole "context" thing is REALLY hard for you, innt?
I'd take the time to explain it...but I mean...COME ON...if yer THAT
Jesus killing retarded that you can't even wake the fuck up for 7
seconds and READ THE PARTS IN ALL CAPS...yeah. Oh but hey, maybe your
RITALIN just takes awhile to kick in. Here, let's try it again, this
time I'll put the WHOLE phrase in CAPS...
THERE'S NO SENSE IN SPENDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
...WOAH...boy that whole READING thing sure is HARD, innt?
DUM DUD DUM DUM DUM!
Seriously Freddytard, if you're not fucking Jesus up the ass
sideways...you're not doing anything.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
Wow, that's awesome, Freddytard...what the fuck all that has to do
with...ANYTHING, boy I dunno, I guess ya just felt like "sharing", huh
Downs?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Fred Doyle
Why, its Matthew using the Bill Clinton method of making a point, lol. Sorry
that your hyperbole got pointed out to you.
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
It's sad that you're still continuing to pretend that you have a
point...of course it's even more sad that you actually really believe
that you do.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Aaron
Okay, okay, I see you need a lesson in research. That's okay, I can hold
your hand.
Pure digital, no Alienzzkinnsnknz(tm), no tracing, from scratch:
http://www.thebailiwick.com/portfolio/gallery.php?sect=d&f=18
http://www.thebailiwick.com/portfolio/gallery.php?sect=d&f=12
http://www.thebailiwick.com/portfolio/gallery.php?sect=d&f=6
http://www.thebailiwick.com/coleman_brown/coleman-brown-elem-4.gif
http://www.thebailiwick.com/portfolio/gallery.php?sect=d&f=13
http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/data-sources-and-interfaces.jpg
http://www.thebailiwick.com/misc/data-source-ecosystem.jpg (unfinished)
I doubt you care, but maybe someone else reading this thread will be
amused by them.
salami met bami
Absolutely nothing, but, if you madvertise ( ;o) ) you better have what you
say
you have, because if somebody comes to check, you might get some problems.
> Or, even better, just use techno
> buzz words like "state-of-the-art", you don't ACTUALLY need to go into
> detail...in fact in most cases that'll just confuse the customer cause
> they'll have no idea what yer techno gibberish means (and they may
> even misinterpret the name of whatever it is to mean something else).
Most likely.
salami met bami
"Aaron" <aa...@thebailiwick.com> schreef in bericht
news:J6idnWgeys1dJIbY...@giganews.com...
Well so you are a psychic. Good for you.
And what is "someone like salami" actually mean.
> Template pusher sites are NOT "rising above their peers" in the "design
> industry." They are to graphic and web design what Wal*Mart is to
> retail; an outlet peddling mediocre (at best) quality to the lowest
> common denominator (which is a very large number of people/sites). Is
> selling Dreamweaver templates profitable? Yes. Will they ever land any
> kind of big deals from reputable companies? No, never. They're peddling
> garbage. Sometimes garbage is what a person needs. Sometimes garbage is
> all a person can afford.
And what has this all have to do with what I wrote? Nothing.
I was talking about something very different, but you highjacket
my message to get on your soapbox, fine by me, and lest not forget
many small businesses may bring in what one big one would.
But I wasn`t talking dreamweaver or webdesign, I was talking advertising
with the setup you had, and not even that seriously, But hey,
it`s your soapbox.
> That's not my area of the market. I sell my services to people with
> taste, to people who have money. I think you know what I'm talking about
> here.
So peolpe who like your stuff have taste. Well, the world consists
of many tastes, luckily.
> This is a tangential discussion, anyway.
Yes it is, especially if you drag me into the discussion lik this.
I am not a designer, I don`t make my money with the things I do
on my computer, it is just for fun for me. To be honest, My flavour
isn`t appreciated much, so I couldn`t make my money with it.
Which I already stated.
> If you're serious about the
> work that you do, you do the best possible work you can because every
> single thing you sell is an advertisement. If it takes expensive
> equipment to do it, and if you are serious about doing it for a living,
> you make it happen. It's called a "capital investment."
I am not, allthough I spend a reasonable amount on my computer equipment
for an amateur.(for many years) And that is what I am.
So why you had to use me for your discussion?
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>So why you had to use me for your discussion?
He was hoping to retard back into the sheeple mentality for support.
It's what people do when they're unsure of their arguments or don't
feel adequate enough to defend them.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
salami met bami
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:02:39 +0200, "salami met bami" <of...@worst.lust>
> wrote:
>
>>So why you had to use me for your discussion?
>
> He was hoping to retard back into the sheeple mentality for support.
> It's what people do when they're unsure of their arguments or don't
> feel adequate enough to defend them.
Could be the reason, I just don't know, and my discussion
wasn`t even about what he was describing, I just got confused.
Davémon
> On 9/28/06 3:08 AM, Davémon commented:
>
>> I just max-ed out Apple's Mac Pro and it came to £12,730 which isn't
>> anywhere near HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars:
>>
>> Which begs the question - is there a more expensive computer out there
>> you could buy to do GD with? and what other high-end, over-spec'd GD
>> equipment have people got/want - Art Directors Box of Pantone Tria
>> markers? complete collection of official Fuzzy-Felt(tm) sets? antique
>> letter-presses?
>
> We sold our 1898 Chandler & Price a few year back:(
>
> I'd add a Wacom Cintiq.
>
> And with that kind of crazy green burning in my fist, I'd go to Sony and pay
> them to make just one more Artisan display for me so I could have my CRT.
> It's what I dreamed of for my next monitor. Or the Mitsubishi Diamondtron
> UWG RDF225WG. Can't even find the Diamondtron for sale by NEC anymore, but
> appears some online retailers (never heard of them before) are selling it
> for nearly $5,000.
>
Surely someone must be making super-high-quality monitors new?
> Then I'd max out on Gretag MacBeth (or, X-rite?) Eye-One (or whatever the
> best would be).
>
The Huey device looks really interesting, anyone know if it actually
works?!?
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
Aaron
> We sold our 1898 Chandler & Price a few year back:(
>
> I'd add a Wacom Cintiq.
>
> And with that kind of crazy green burning in my fist, I'd go to Sony
> and pay them to make just one more Artisan display for me so I could
> have my CRT. It's what I dreamed of for my next monitor. Or the
> Mitsubishi Diamondtron UWG RDF225WG. Can't even find the Diamondtron
> for sale by NEC anymore, but appears some online retailers (never
> heard of them before) are selling it for nearly $5,000.
>
> the best would be).
Gretag MacBeth was bought by x-rite, yeah? They also bought Monaco
Systems. I have a Monaco EZcolor Optix, love the hell out of it, great
system for the (relatively) low price of $400. The new ones out now are
$500, but compared to their $1,000+ competitors, a bargain.
If you do take the plunge, though, don't ever, ever lose that 5x7
reflective color target! The software ONLY works with the Monaco branded
one (you can't just use a Kodak), and I recently lost mine. X-rite sells
replacements for $40.00. Seems a bit much for a piece of thick, shiny
paper, but what can you do?