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)?
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%)
Describe This Image As Dramatically As Possible
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
OH SHIT EVERYTHING IS _ENORMOUS_
- Reply
Those are ten seconds you will never get back! D:
- Reply
> jpg
> lineart
> somehow only 775kb with no visible artefacting on 100% zoom
what sorcery is this?
- 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
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
2. Don't even know what rasterized means
3. I was too lazy to resize it
- 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%)