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

[Michiel Sikma]

Op 17-mei-2006, om 16:05 heeft Kenneth Wimer het volgende geschreven:

>
> On May 17, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Michiel Sikma wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Not true. A decent artist could touch up every version to make it  
> nice, but simply scaling any pic and expecting the anti-aliasing to  
> look good is not enough, no matter how well the original pic looks  
> at the size intended or how well it is made.

This _is_ true if you simply scale the pic from the full-colored  
version. Of course, it's imperative that the artist does NOT scale an  
already indexed color image!

>> 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.
>>
>
> This will work - but not always...it depends on the pic itself and  
> how the lines, angles, curves and colors are anti-aliased at a  
> given size. In the end, the result might be "good enough" but this  
> is not a rule one can write in stone. If it works for you, great.  
> If it works for others, great. But let's not explain things this  
> way only.
>

I don't see the problem. Just scale the picture from the full-color  
version and fix the anti-aliasing like you normally would. Any kind  
of problems that one would run in, would also be ran into when making  
whatever version you've already uploaded.

>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> I don't use Opera :-) I did finally find out how to turn off the  
> stupid smoothing using gwenview though.
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yeah, this might be the best way to limit the amount of confusion  
> but I guess it is a little late now to start this policy.

Look, I really don't care what kind of policy is put in place, but  
what I do care about is that people's artwork submissions are equally  
judged. It's nonsense to say that you'll judge someone's art  
differently or even not at all because they didn't adhere to an  
unwritten rule about scaling artwork. As long as this is confirmed,  
I'm fine with anything.

>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> The problem is that I am actually drawing the pic differently for  
> the pre-scaled versions, so in the end it means maintaining two  
> versions of the same graphic and always changing them both when one  
> is changed.

I don't get why you would want that. All that happens with the  
scaling is the image being squished and then later stretched back to  
normal. The only effect would be a loss in quality; not a loss in  
proportions or composition. I don't see why you would want to  
maintain two versions.

>
>
>> Michiel
>
>
> Bye,
> Ken
>
>