Tahrey: Fair enough, but I doubt I have Nexus access and every time I have to register a new account somewhere I enjoy the process less and less. I'm already registered here, and the thread isn't really going anywhere else...
2. "Changed from a vector image (described as a series of lines and fills with exceptionally high resolution and smooth scaling) to a bitmap (ie made of a limited number of pixels)". A holdover from the CRT days when you had a choice between displays that used vector mapping (the beam location could be freely moved to any point on the screen, turned on, and then swept across to another...), or more TV-style ones which scanned across a regular series of horizontal lines, turning on and off at regular intervals to describe discontinuous strips of pixels. These lines being called, for reasons I do not ken the wot of, "Rasters". Thus taking an image designed for display on a pixelised device and manipulating it for output on a vector one instead was "vectorisation", and the reverse was "rasterisation". And as CRT raster displays came to be the dominant tech, followed by their LCD children, the term has stuck. Though you could use "pixelated" for more accuracy, that would actually be less clear as the term is more generally used to describe something that's of of excessively poor resolution and far too obviously made of square blocks.
3. Please, think of the children. Yknow, the ones who'll be trying to view this on low-memory devices with small displays. InsaneRez is all well and good if we want to print it out, and it does preserve a very clean record of your excellent vectoring work, but it's otherwise of no use to anyone as I've yet to run across anywhere selling a monitor large enough to show the entire pic without some kind of downscaling. Unless of course the idea is to show it on an experimental 100+ inch Super Hi-Vision 8K panel... turned landscape.
I mean, how did you even make it so high rez in the first place? If you drew it in a vector program but then chose to save to PNG, did it not give you a dpi option?
I'd suggest for uploading here, if it originally said, say, 600dpi (for a 6 1/8" by 9 1/6" canvas, or an 8.5 x 11 one with some whitespace borders that got automatically cropped), you maybe try 150 to 200 next time (919x1375 to 1225x1833) which will still look just as good in almost any circumstance. 300 if you really want to stay committed to the hi-rez cause (...as it'll still reduce the memory load by 75%)
Tahrey: Desaturated version is otherwise much closer to the original 2D rendering, however.
Can someone PLEASE get her some band-aids or a brassiere though? I mean, won't anybody think of the children? Whatever will they start to think if women go around with visible nipple bumps? They might start associating them with the teats on baby bottles or something...
Tahrey: Oh, fwiw, as we were on the subject, that's 60 to 80mb once decompressed into 24 or 32bit colour, respectively o_O
My older phone very rarely had more than about 100mb of RAM to spare (seeing as it only 576 in total), so trying to load this pic may well have caused it to crash...
There can't be THAT many colours in it, however. Anyone know if PNG still decompresses to truecolour in a web browser if you save it with reduced colour depth (e.g. 256 colours / 8 bit, thus a more manageable 20mb, and still a plenty large enough palette for all the block colours plus shading and antialiasing)?
Tahrey: (If I want to go into more specific example-spouting, I would consider a 2mpx digital camera - ie approx 1600x1200 - as the bare minimum for an A4 or roughly 10x8 inch professionally-developed *PRINT*, as that would come out at around 150dpi, which generally appears pretty much perfect to the human eye so long as it's been smooth-scaled and there's no particular features in it that would make the slightly less than retina resolution overly obvious (and for a glossy A4-ish magazine centre spread, you want 8+ mpx, of course... so, if you intend using this image for that kind of use, it's perfect ;).
Yer typical interweb slate is a little smaller than that - it's equal to a 12 or 13 inch diagonal after all - so that kind of rez should look OK on one of typical size even fairly close up, as well as on larger, coarser desktop or laptop monitors because you tend to sit comparitively further away from them.
Full HD TV - and "2K" cinema - is only in the 2000x1100 range after all...)
Tahrey: Didn't know iPads were up to that rez now, weren't they topping out somewhere in the 2048-2560 horizontal rez range? Also, in terms of *phones* as they were specifically the devices mentioned, my newer one has a 1280x720 display and the older one 800x480, and even the dual monitor computer I'm typing from right now uses one at 1440x900 and another at 1024x1280.
Generally speaking, those resolutions are overkill and even on a retina ipad something half the rez shouldn't look particularly clunky. On most displays it will either overflow in spectacular fashion, or have to be downscaled by an awful lot in order to fit the screen... but the browser still has to load the entire image in order to do that, wasting bandwidth, time (and thus battery), memory (of which there may be only a limited supply) and processing power (yet more battery drain).
Bear in mind that something of that size, decompressed, will consume something in the region of 21 to 28mb of memory, a significant amount for yer typical MID, and a potential dealbreaker for a lower end one. Moreso when you consider it having to also cache the compressed file (+3mb) and the downscaled version (for my newer phone, that's +3 to 4mb). 35 megs of working memory for a fairly simple image as that is way over the top. Also bear in mind it won't be the only thing that the machine is having to deal with, even just within the context of that single tab, never mind the rest of the browser and all the other running apps plus the OS.
If you upload a digital photo of that rez to facebook it'll automatically squash it to a max of 960x960. Do you think you could stand to maybe upload the original vector plus a link to a 1500x1200 raster on Imgur or the like (or maybe vice versa)?
If you're that bothered about it working on mobiles, of course. I personally wouldn't often bother browsing a site such as this on my phone (I have done before, it's not the most enjoyable experience anyway...), and if I came across something that didn't work I'd just bleep over it and move on because occasionally-broken webpages are par for the mobile browsing course tbh.
It being a pain in the ass to get the size down is probably to do with the pixel size btw - downsizing to 50% of original dimensions might give you a 4x smaller file straight off the bat - but also saving it as JPG (...and given the lack of obvious artefacts even at 100%, I'd say it's either at a very high quality setting, possibly with 4-4-4 colour, or even in "lossless" mode). Maybe a good place to start on the compromise front is loading up the un-squished original and saving it back out as PNG instead? That's a much better choice for this kind of imagery and it should produce a much smaller file, as well as in perfect quality (which even the highest quality non-lossless jpg won't be).
Tahrey: (ergo, maybe the browser is trying to display it as an html page and thus failing, as if you hold it to those standards it's rather badly malformed, being merely a module/fragment/object rather than an entire correctly-formatted page?)
Tahrey: ...in fact when I right click on the embedded image (in Chrome) and try to "save as", it presents as a piece of HTML rather than an SVG file...
Tahrey: OK, tried again, both in Chrome with all extensions turned off, and in Internet Explorer (this machine only has those two browsers). No change in Chrome. And it didn't work at all in IE. Like, it didn't display embedded in the regular page, and when I clicked "image only" it displayed the xml contents of the file as if it were a text document (...and showed it as having a name that ended in "_jpg.mht", rather than the ".svg?" of Chrome... and yes, knocking off the "?" didn't do anything either).
Said XML may reveal why it didn't work though I think - the interactivity / state machine lurking within appears to be driven by javascript. Maybe, for security reasons, that doesn't load when you're just viewing an image by itself rather than within the context of a whole page, and the display engine gets rather confused as a result?
Tahrey: ...actually might be something to do with how it's more than 3000x2400 in size and almost 3mb of data. All the same, the camera in my phone takes images at up to 8mpx, which is 3264x2448 iirc, and the files can be quite sizeable as a result, yet it still displays THOSE just fine. So, erm? What actual handset are we talking about?
Tahrey: ah, OK. well, my chrome didn't display anything more than a "broken image" placeholder icon when I clicked that button, so it might not be just you... basically everything else works with it, though.
and good to see that, 25-ish years since html was first proposed as a cross-platform display-system-agnostic document display standard, it's finally had vector graphics baked into it. would have made a lot more sense back in the early 90s, really, as it's not that big a deal to transmit or resize hefty full colour images (or indeed two-way video) any more, but, eh... late progress is still progress all the same.
Tahrey: Valk: me either. I think maybe Chrome just doesn't like displaying raw interactive SVGs, as I have no extensions installed save for a facebook/youtube video downloader.
Tahrey: Hmm, I think I have that installed here somewhere ... or maybe on my home machine if not the work one... and juvenile examples are always the best ones.
Tahrey: > clicks randomise at high speed for a solid minute until the bloodied eye finally appears
> sets shirt 14, legwear 10
> nothing happens
I think the trigger must be something else, TPB. The hair didn't change (stayed on #3, with a flower as well), nor did the gloves. Maybe you hit some other combo along the way without realising?
Nor is she scowling, either :D
The Nicole thing didn't work for me neither - just looked rather like the default one I thought was maybe Jennifer Aniston. I really think you must have unlocked them some other way, unless you're trolling ...
Also that's one fine, addictive-ass tumblr you've got there, both the main and doodle streams. Had to force myself to close them after several minutes of straight scrolling.
Dramatic Descriptions
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
;)
- Reply
2. "Changed from a vector image (described as a series of lines and fills with exceptionally high resolution and smooth scaling) to a bitmap (ie made of a limited number of pixels)". A holdover from the CRT days when you had a choice between displays that used vector mapping (the beam location could be freely moved to any point on the screen, turned on, and then swept across to another...), or more TV-style ones which scanned across a regular series of horizontal lines, turning on and off at regular intervals to describe discontinuous strips of pixels. These lines being called, for reasons I do not ken the wot of, "Rasters". Thus taking an image designed for display on a pixelised device and manipulating it for output on a vector one instead was "vectorisation", and the reverse was "rasterisation". And as CRT raster displays came to be the dominant tech, followed by their LCD children, the term has stuck. Though you could use "pixelated" for more accuracy, that would actually be less clear as the term is more generally used to describe something that's of of excessively poor resolution and far too obviously made of square blocks.
3. Please, think of the children. Yknow, the ones who'll be trying to view this on low-memory devices with small displays. InsaneRez is all well and good if we want to print it out, and it does preserve a very clean record of your excellent vectoring work, but it's otherwise of no use to anyone as I've yet to run across anywhere selling a monitor large enough to show the entire pic without some kind of downscaling. Unless of course the idea is to show it on an experimental 100+ inch Super Hi-Vision 8K panel... turned landscape.
I mean, how did you even make it so high rez in the first place? If you drew it in a vector program but then chose to save to PNG, did it not give you a dpi option?
I'd suggest for uploading here, if it originally said, say, 600dpi (for a 6 1/8" by 9 1/6" canvas, or an 8.5 x 11 one with some whitespace borders that got automatically cropped), you maybe try 150 to 200 next time (919x1375 to 1225x1833) which will still look just as good in almost any circumstance. 300 if you really want to stay committed to the hi-rez cause (...as it'll still reduce the memory load by 75%)
- Reply
- Reply
Also, five finger hands with decidedly human rather than hideous and cat-like digits. Tch! ;)
(yes yes I know 5-finger is more difficult, shh)
- Reply
Is this a new rule 34 thing? After the SD-N's? Boobclaws?
- Reply
also, really awesome art deco posters that rarely have anything to do with the official photo-based hollywood ones.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
sorry
BTW, is it deliberate that she seems to have very human feet, right down to the toenails? :)
- Reply
Can someone PLEASE get her some band-aids or a brassiere though? I mean, won't anybody think of the children? Whatever will they start to think if women go around with visible nipple bumps? They might start associating them with the teats on baby bottles or something...
- Reply
Should be skirt/shirt/legwarmers/mantle hems = purplish grey, inter-hem panelling on mantle = faded aqua, cloak lining = that strange wine-stain colour.
- Reply
- Reply
Mikey, pass your mods down to ASW.
- Reply
- Reply
My older phone very rarely had more than about 100mb of RAM to spare (seeing as it only 576 in total), so trying to load this pic may well have caused it to crash...
There can't be THAT many colours in it, however. Anyone know if PNG still decompresses to truecolour in a web browser if you save it with reduced colour depth (e.g. 256 colours / 8 bit, thus a more manageable 20mb, and still a plenty large enough palette for all the block colours plus shading and antialiasing)?
- Reply
- Reply
That might explain why Google Deep Dream (which demands jpeg-standard input...) balked at least once when presented with a pic downloaded from here...
- Reply
Yer typical interweb slate is a little smaller than that - it's equal to a 12 or 13 inch diagonal after all - so that kind of rez should look OK on one of typical size even fairly close up, as well as on larger, coarser desktop or laptop monitors because you tend to sit comparitively further away from them.
Full HD TV - and "2K" cinema - is only in the 2000x1100 range after all...)
- Reply
Generally speaking, those resolutions are overkill and even on a retina ipad something half the rez shouldn't look particularly clunky. On most displays it will either overflow in spectacular fashion, or have to be downscaled by an awful lot in order to fit the screen... but the browser still has to load the entire image in order to do that, wasting bandwidth, time (and thus battery), memory (of which there may be only a limited supply) and processing power (yet more battery drain).
Bear in mind that something of that size, decompressed, will consume something in the region of 21 to 28mb of memory, a significant amount for yer typical MID, and a potential dealbreaker for a lower end one. Moreso when you consider it having to also cache the compressed file (+3mb) and the downscaled version (for my newer phone, that's +3 to 4mb). 35 megs of working memory for a fairly simple image as that is way over the top. Also bear in mind it won't be the only thing that the machine is having to deal with, even just within the context of that single tab, never mind the rest of the browser and all the other running apps plus the OS.
If you upload a digital photo of that rez to facebook it'll automatically squash it to a max of 960x960. Do you think you could stand to maybe upload the original vector plus a link to a 1500x1200 raster on Imgur or the like (or maybe vice versa)?
If you're that bothered about it working on mobiles, of course. I personally wouldn't often bother browsing a site such as this on my phone (I have done before, it's not the most enjoyable experience anyway...), and if I came across something that didn't work I'd just bleep over it and move on because occasionally-broken webpages are par for the mobile browsing course tbh.
It being a pain in the ass to get the size down is probably to do with the pixel size btw - downsizing to 50% of original dimensions might give you a 4x smaller file straight off the bat - but also saving it as JPG (...and given the lack of obvious artefacts even at 100%, I'd say it's either at a very high quality setting, possibly with 4-4-4 colour, or even in "lossless" mode). Maybe a good place to start on the compromise front is loading up the un-squished original and saving it back out as PNG instead? That's a much better choice for this kind of imagery and it should produce a much smaller file, as well as in perfect quality (which even the highest quality non-lossless jpg won't be).
- Reply
- Reply
At best you could say mecha-magikal?
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Said XML may reveal why it didn't work though I think - the interactivity / state machine lurking within appears to be driven by javascript. Maybe, for security reasons, that doesn't load when you're just viewing an image by itself rather than within the context of a whole page, and the display engine gets rather confused as a result?
- Reply
> jpg
> lineart
> somehow only 775kb with no visible artefacting on 100% zoom
what sorcery is this?
- Reply
- Reply
and good to see that, 25-ish years since html was first proposed as a cross-platform display-system-agnostic document display standard, it's finally had vector graphics baked into it. would have made a lot more sense back in the early 90s, really, as it's not that big a deal to transmit or resize hefty full colour images (or indeed two-way video) any more, but, eh... late progress is still progress all the same.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Valkaiser: 0x0003F200: HCF
- Reply
OH SHIT EVERYTHING IS _ENORMOUS_
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
I love the SVG thumbnail thing btw, even though use of the format was vaguely-justfied in this case.
Also TIL: SVGs can be interactive. Oh, the fun we could have with this. If I had something which could make them, and the time, and could be bothered.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
> sets shirt 14, legwear 10
> nothing happens
I think the trigger must be something else, TPB. The hair didn't change (stayed on #3, with a flower as well), nor did the gloves. Maybe you hit some other combo along the way without realising?
Nor is she scowling, either :D
The Nicole thing didn't work for me neither - just looked rather like the default one I thought was maybe Jennifer Aniston. I really think you must have unlocked them some other way, unless you're trolling ...
- Reply
- Reply
Also that's one fine, addictive-ass tumblr you've got there, both the main and doodle streams. Had to force myself to close them after several minutes of straight scrolling.