Joe to the rescue
- Thread starter nacho
- Start date
Sure is that easy for a plain colored border. You can even use the size markers grid or rulers to get exactly the right sized border.
Yeah, but if he's not printing it the size/dpi that it defaults to, it's probably not going to be right.
The thing is originally about 17 x 21, scanned at 300dpi, and then cropped slightly to remove the unsightly old border. It'll matter what his final size is to get the right number of pixels for a 1.75" border.
Sure, you can stretch and shrink using any number of programs, but if it's not done carefully, you'll get some weird artifacts from crappy interpolation or downsampling. Unless you have some swanky fractal interpolating software, it's always better to leave the number of pixels fixed and change the dpi slightly up or down to achieve a certain print size.
As long as you have 200+ dpi for a print this large, it'll look fine. For 8x10 or smaller, you need 300+ dpi. For a billboard, you'd only need 300 pixels per foot, as your eye acts like a low-pass filter at a reasonable viewing distance...
The thing is originally about 17 x 21, scanned at 300dpi, and then cropped slightly to remove the unsightly old border. It'll matter what his final size is to get the right number of pixels for a 1.75" border.
Sure, you can stretch and shrink using any number of programs, but if it's not done carefully, you'll get some weird artifacts from crappy interpolation or downsampling. Unless you have some swanky fractal interpolating software, it's always better to leave the number of pixels fixed and change the dpi slightly up or down to achieve a certain print size.
As long as you have 200+ dpi for a print this large, it'll look fine. For 8x10 or smaller, you need 300+ dpi. For a billboard, you'd only need 300 pixels per foot, as your eye acts like a low-pass filter at a reasonable viewing distance...
I see what you are saying about pixels. My method will change pixels, but will not stretch it, DPI will remain at 300. I am only changing canvas size and not the image. In pic below of image properties, yours is the one on the right, mine is one on the left (I did not measure 1.75 just did it quick). 2nd pic is what mine looks like now. no stretching, I just increased the canvas the pic sits on, I did not alter the picture. It's the same as putting a real 8x10 photograph into a frame, once it is put in, the entire thing is 10x12, but the image is still just 8x10, not stretched, not crushed. Another analogy would be, I cut the picture out of paper, glued it to a larger paper. instant frame. image stays the same. Does what you are saying get affected during the print than, with the artifacts or were you basing that on thinking I stretched the image and not the canvas it sits on. Most of this is new to me so I am not arguing, just trying to make sure I am understanding what you are saying.I would like to get a large print done of a skyline to put on my wall behind dios and want to makes sure that when I have it printed larger, it doesn't look like crap.
of course photobucket did shrink the pic some.
of course photobucket did shrink the pic some.
Last edited:
You are correct... to an extent. When you open up the program, it says the image is 5832 pixels wide and 300 dpi. Thus it's 5832/300 = 19.44 inches wide. If you then add your 1.75" @ 300dpi, you are correct that you've effectively left the pic alone and just added extra border (in this case, it would be 525 pixels (300 x 1.75) all the way around). BUT, that only works if you plan to print it at 19.44" wide, what I would call the native/original size.
But let's assume that Slay wants to print 32" wide plus a border. If you leave it at 300dpi, and stretch it to 32", the image grows to 32x300 = 9600 pixels wide. But nearly half of those pixels are interpolations, padded inserts that usually just average the color values of the pixels on either side, making it higher res but blurred. Then when you save it, the JPEG algorithm has to account for those new pixels as new information, but they really don't add any new information entropy-wise. The file size increases, you have a chance of getting some artifacting depending on the compression level. And every time you save it, it will get worse because jpeg is a "lossy" compression (i.e. it actually discards information every time you save it).
You're better off keeping it 5832 pixels wide and changing the resolution to 182 dpi (5832/32 ~= 182). Then when you add 1.75", you're only adding 319 pixels (182 x 1.75) all the way around.
So if you're keeping the number of pixels in the main image fixed, the number of pixels needed for the 1.75" border will vary based on the dpi, which is determined by the size of the physical printing. It's a cleaner way to do it. I would only use interpolation if you were making it so big that the dpi dropped below 100-150. And then I would use fractal interpolation that is far smarter at adding the pixels than just mere averaging. It keeps the edges and other little details much sharper.
Bottom line, for minor changes, you probably can't see the difference and I'm just being super particular (I'm a picky SOB). But if you do much image work, the changes all add up and eventually degrade the quality of your image. I could go full-nerd and dive into 2-D discrete fourier transforms and information theory about the inner workings of the jpeg algorithm, but I'm tired and you're going to have to take my word for it
-----
A much simpler way to look at your original question (without all my rambling). If you print this image @ 10" wide, a 1.75" border would be much larger proportionally than a 1.75" border on an image 30" wide. Make sense?
But let's assume that Slay wants to print 32" wide plus a border. If you leave it at 300dpi, and stretch it to 32", the image grows to 32x300 = 9600 pixels wide. But nearly half of those pixels are interpolations, padded inserts that usually just average the color values of the pixels on either side, making it higher res but blurred. Then when you save it, the JPEG algorithm has to account for those new pixels as new information, but they really don't add any new information entropy-wise. The file size increases, you have a chance of getting some artifacting depending on the compression level. And every time you save it, it will get worse because jpeg is a "lossy" compression (i.e. it actually discards information every time you save it).
You're better off keeping it 5832 pixels wide and changing the resolution to 182 dpi (5832/32 ~= 182). Then when you add 1.75", you're only adding 319 pixels (182 x 1.75) all the way around.
So if you're keeping the number of pixels in the main image fixed, the number of pixels needed for the 1.75" border will vary based on the dpi, which is determined by the size of the physical printing. It's a cleaner way to do it. I would only use interpolation if you were making it so big that the dpi dropped below 100-150. And then I would use fractal interpolation that is far smarter at adding the pixels than just mere averaging. It keeps the edges and other little details much sharper.
Bottom line, for minor changes, you probably can't see the difference and I'm just being super particular (I'm a picky SOB). But if you do much image work, the changes all add up and eventually degrade the quality of your image. I could go full-nerd and dive into 2-D discrete fourier transforms and information theory about the inner workings of the jpeg algorithm, but I'm tired and you're going to have to take my word for it
-----
A much simpler way to look at your original question (without all my rambling). If you print this image @ 10" wide, a 1.75" border would be much larger proportionally than a 1.75" border on an image 30" wide. Make sense?
Last edited:
wow. I get what you are saying. I was thinking that the printed size is what you were refering to (If he wanted to increase/decrease its size). I had no idea how it actually increases or decreases the image pixel wise. That was a good lessen. It makes perfect sense. Remove out what will in essence be replaced. Thanks bro. I need to now rethink my method for the image I want blown up. Its for a dio backdrop and it has to look sharp to be believable.
Interpolation isn't bad, it's just unnecessary unless your dpi for a given print size is too low. But most programs just use "dumb" interpolation which does very little but increase the file size. It might decrease pixelation by adding fake pixels in-between the real ones, but it just makes it blurrier, so the net gain is minimal at best.
It's the same thing as "digital zoom" on a camera. One of my all-time pet-peeves is digital zoom. Such a crock. All it does is take the image as close as you can get with the physical lens, then takes the middle of the picture, stretches the hell out of it with some weak upsampling interpolation and spits out a blurry pic that's "hi-res". Such a crock of shit.
It's the same thing as "digital zoom" on a camera. One of my all-time pet-peeves is digital zoom. Such a crock. All it does is take the image as close as you can get with the physical lens, then takes the middle of the picture, stretches the hell out of it with some weak upsampling interpolation and spits out a blurry pic that's "hi-res". Such a crock of shit.
For a dio backdrop, just get the image as high-res as you possibly can naturally, and upscale with a smart interpolation if you need more pixels for your print size.
Here's a cool website talking about the different interpolation methods/software. You can just look at the pics and get an idea of what I'm trying to convey.
http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm
FYI, I'm a Genuine Fractal's guy myself...
Here's a cool website talking about the different interpolation methods/software. You can just look at the pics and get an idea of what I'm trying to convey.
http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm
FYI, I'm a Genuine Fractal's guy myself...
Last edited:
Thankyou. I was planning on taking it into Office Max on my flash drive. I have a high resolution of the picture I want to use. 3600x1800. 150 DPI. I was just gonna tell them I wanted the height at 36" and let the height decide the width. I want a 36x36 square. I figured I would just cut it down to my size when they were done. I actually don't know if they do that big, but figured if they don't. Somewhere else will.
So I guess I will take the time to "prep" the picture before I take it there and size it myself.
Last edited:
I guess the "frame" is 1.5" but adding and extra .25 is probably ok.
I think I am going to go with the 16 x 20 it is $22.96 and ready same day...
http://photos.walmart.com/walmart/productdetail/prd=FauxCanvas
Last edited:
Thanks for the edit. I'm gonna go download Genuine Fractals 4.1 right now and give it a go. The differences in the pictures is night and day.
edit- Genuine Fractals looks to have been bought and is now called Perfect Effects, still free. Still grabbing it.
edit- Genuine Fractals looks to have been bought and is now called Perfect Effects, still free. Still grabbing it.
Last edited:
The last time I grabbed a free copy of GF, it was just a trial that watermarked the images (the older versions did not, they just had size limitations on the free version). I've heard that if you look in the shady corners of the interwebs, you might find a full version... not that I endorse such things.
I guess the "frame" is 1.5" but adding and extra .25 is probably ok.
I think I am going to go with the 16 x 20 it is $22.96 and ready same day...
http://photos.walmart.com/walmart/productdetail/prd=FauxCanvas
Ok, I'll fix it up tonight and upload it first thing in the morning when I get to the office, if that works for you.
That is awesome! Thank you so much! I should be able to then send it online through Walmart.com and pick it up later on tomorrow. SWEET!
BTW, all the nerd tech talk aside, I just use Photoshop to resize my shit normally, and then use a method of smart blur, play with the pixel values, and then fade it out till it looks proper... Then I add 1-2% noise to help it not look so airbrushed. A basic sharpen somewhere in there sometimes helps, so long as it's at a larger scale. 
haha, sorry, Nacho knows his stuff and looked to be the perfect time for me to learn some.
Hey, I'm the one from rural Tennessee. If there is any redneck-speak going on, I can play that game too...
Ok Slay, here you go.
16"x20" @ 291dpi w/ additional 1.5" black border (~16MB)
http://www.collectedcomics.com/toys/joe_to_the_rescue_16x20.jpg
16"x20" @ 291dpi w/ additional 1.5" black border (~16MB)
http://www.collectedcomics.com/toys/joe_to_the_rescue_16x20.jpg
Last edited:
LOL - here is the 1st report. The file is too large for Walmart.com to upload...so I just placed it on a memory stick and am heading across the street now.
AND the photo place doesn't open until 9:00 a - guess I will try again later this morning.
AND the photo place doesn't open until 9:00 a - guess I will try again later this morning.
Last edited:
Doh! I feared that and compressed it ever so slightly, but I guess I didn't squash it enough. I just didn't want to degrade the image.
OK - it's not on the wall yet (watched Red Dawn with my family tonight - we all liked it)
Corner wrap off slightly
for scale
Total cost was just a bit under $25.00...it is faux canvas on a cardboard box...super light...but super cool.
Thanks again, Nacho!!!
Corner wrap off slightly
for scale
Total cost was just a bit under $25.00...it is faux canvas on a cardboard box...super light...but super cool.
Thanks again, Nacho!!!
Awesome, thanks for the pics. I'm soooooo going to do that.
So, is the main surface smaller than 16x20 (i.e. do they wrap a little of the pic to make sure there's no unsightly edge showing), or did they print it slightly larger than expected? I'm just trying to figure out how to keep from losing 1/4" all the way around.
So, is the main surface smaller than 16x20 (i.e. do they wrap a little of the pic to make sure there's no unsightly edge showing), or did they print it slightly larger than expected? I'm just trying to figure out how to keep from losing 1/4" all the way around.
I will measure it for sure in the morning...I am heading to bed soon...the black all printed out and that made up most of the edge...without that - 1.5" would have been wrapped.
They have real canvas too...but costs much more. All canvas and faux canvas are on "roll back" right now..so I saved 25%.
They have real canvas too...but costs much more. All canvas and faux canvas are on "roll back" right now..so I saved 25%.
Not bad. I don't like that the logo's so tight on the edge (regardless of the wrap-around) but it's not bad. If I had a mancave, I'd put it up. How much did it cost after the "Rollbackin'"?
Nacho, you think you could borrow the area from that other one I posted, and match it up enough and then add a new Joe logo on it in a new area?
Nacho, you think you could borrow the area from that other one I posted, and match it up enough and then add a new Joe logo on it in a new area?
Man that's cool...
One thing I've been wondering about that pic...is it supposed to be of the O13?...if so, two are missing...are they pilots?...far in the background?
One thing I've been wondering about that pic...is it supposed to be of the O13?...if so, two are missing...are they pilots?...far in the background?
I'm assuming that's Hawk in the HAL, Rock 'n Roll on the RAM, with Short Fuze manning the MMS?
I guess Grunt and Zap are two of the 3 running in the background? I only spotted the others. Although that could be Grunt or Zap on the HAL, with Hawk missing. Hell if I know, those 3 are so generic and boring that I pretty much hated them until the 25th versions came out, and only counted Hawk as the '85 version with the bomber jacket. I don't like blond Colonel Hawk, he looks like a Duke pre-clone.
I guess Grunt and Zap are two of the 3 running in the background? I only spotted the others. Although that could be Grunt or Zap on the HAL, with Hawk missing. Hell if I know, those 3 are so generic and boring that I pretty much hated them until the 25th versions came out, and only counted Hawk as the '85 version with the bomber jacket. I don't like blond Colonel Hawk, he looks like a Duke pre-clone.
Damn, Eddie. I don't know how we missed it. Grunt is hiding behind the VAMP's passenger side. He's peeking out slightly, and I guess it's Zap in the HAL, because Hawk's just barely visible beside the HAL. Check it out:
Lol!...so awesome!...took me a second...thought my eyes were playing tricks on me
I didn't read what you posted...I just looked at the pic...it was like "where's Waldo?"
I didn't read what you posted...I just looked at the pic...it was like "where's Waldo?"
Haha. I'm a tad miffed they didn't release the HAL or JUMP deck at all, and that they didn't release the MMS in the right colors.
We were supposed to get the Whirlwind in the 25th, but that got cancelled and replaced with the Cobra version with the Jungle Range Viper.
Here's the artwork for the box that Jareau Wimberly did:
http://reau.daportfolio.com/gallery/648724#7
We were supposed to get the Whirlwind in the 25th, but that got cancelled and replaced with the Cobra version with the Jungle Range Viper.
Here's the artwork for the box that Jareau Wimberly did:
http://reau.daportfolio.com/gallery/648724#7