Fwd: [ubuntu-art] Re: ubuntu-art Digest, Vol 11, Issue 46

[Michiel Sikma]

Accidentally sent this mail to just Kenneth, forwarding it to the  
mailing list as well...

Michiel

Begin doorgestuurd bericht:

> Van: Michiel Sikma <omega at avalanchestudios.net>
> Datum: 17 mei 2006 15:08:42 GMT+02:00
> Aan: Kenneth Wimer <ken at oxygen-icons.org>
> Onderwerp: Antw.: [ubuntu-art] Re: ubuntu-art Digest, Vol 11, Issue 46
>
>
> Op 17-mei-2006, om 14:49 heeft Kenneth Wimer het volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>> On May 17, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Michiel Sikma wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Op 17-mei-2006, om 12:52 heeft Kenneth Wimer het volgende  
>>> geschreven:
>>>
>>>> The problems I see with this whole thing is this:
>>>>
>>>> A pic, when rendered from vector with a decent editor, anti- 
>>>> aliases differently at different sizes. Every time the thing is  
>>>> scaled you loose quality (unless you are just really, really  
>>>> lucky). So, making bigger pics is easy but they are only loosely  
>>>> related to other versions of the same pic (when it comes to the  
>>>> anti-aliasing) and therefor not the best determiner as to the  
>>>> quality of anti-aliasing.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I'll still make bigger versions of my pics...but  
>>>> let's not decide based on the bigger versions, but on the  
>>>> smaller versions :-)
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>> Ken
>>>
>>> As for the losing of quality: when you downscale any raster  
>>> image, you will lose information. That's true. However, since a  
>>> downscaled image is smaller than the original, you won't actually  
>>> SEE that you lose information. You will only see this if you  
>>> UPscale an image.
>>
>> True. But, what we are aiming for here is knowing exactly which  
>> pic has the best anti-aliasing, so any change in the information  
>> in the images between versions leads us to make a decision based  
>> on at least partially incorrect or unknown information.
>>
>
> Not if a sufficiently decent artist made it.
>
> I managed to get the color dithering and anti-aliasing just right  
> for my entries. I can do it again for downscaled entries just as  
> easily. I think this shouldn't be a problem for the other artists  
> as well.
>
>> Also, I think that we should separate the cases of pre-scaling the  
>> pics to the correct aspect ratio and scaling them up as Mark asked  
>> in another mail. Perhaps this is leading to confusion.
>>
>>>
>>> So if you don't have normal-sized versions of your splash screen,  
>>> then that's okay; just don't post upscaled versions. That's not  
>>> necessary.
>>
>> If I understood Mark correctly, he would like a bigger version of  
>> the pic, in which the anti-aliasing can be seen at a larger size.
>>
>> I misunderstood this at first and assumed I would have to export  
>> larger versions but after a coffee and 5min thinking, I realized  
>> that this is the incorrect way to do this. In order to show the  
>> actual pics anti-aliasing at a larger size, I simply scaled the  
>> entire image with the Gimp and set the interpolation to "none". I  
>> think that I am on the right track here (see the attached pics).
>
> Doesn't Opera support the scaling of pictures? You could just view  
> the page with that.
>
>>
>>> However, let's NOT necessarily decide on the smaller versions;  
>>> all my images are normal-sized versions that need to be  
>>> downscaled before they're used in any binary, and I don't think  
>>> we should downscale them for the sake of comparison.
>>>
>>
>> I think that the artistic merits of the design itself should be  
>> decided upon as one will view it in real life (not scaled) but the  
>> technical issues as to how well the thing will actually look when  
>> in use definitely need to be considered as well. Of course, one  
>> oculd argue that unless we make screenshot of the thing in action,  
>> there is no way to know 100% for certain how any pic will look  
>> when in use due to the scaling unless someone can come up with the  
>> scaling algorithm and/or a test program to display the usplash on  
>> the fly.
>
> Okay... I suggest that every artist makes both a normal version,  
> without additional scaling, and a "corrected" version of whatever  
> images they have proposed. I think that this would be best. You  
> could use the normally scaled image as reference to see which one  
> actually looks best, and the other once we've decided which is  
> going to be used.
>
>>
>>> In short: you really should provide normal-sized screens, both  
>>> for reasons of comparison and for compatibility with future  
>>> splash screens that might not be affected by squishing (maybe  
>>> when EFI becomes the new standard, for example...); if you don't  
>>> have any normal-sized screens, then don't worry about it.
>>> Michiel
>>
>> Due to the amount of work involved with redrawing all the pics  
>> without the pre-scaling for the aspect ratio scaling later, I  
>> won't unless someone asks specifically for this :-)
>>
>
> I keep layered and full-color versions of all my files in case we  
> ever have the need for it later. I think others should assume this  
> as well, just in case, although it's not really necessary now.
>
> Michiel