If you reduce the size of an image, you should not get any significant pixellation or reduction in quality. If you go the other direction (128 x 128 -> 600 X 600), you will lose quality. Generally speaking.
I don't use Gimp, so I can't really say what might be happening, but if you can show us your elements and how they're interacting, it may help us to help you.
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
I don't know why either... can you post an example?
-Rob A>
My tutorials: Using GIMP to Create an Artistic Regional Map ~ All My Tutorials
My GIMP Scripts: Rotating Brush ~ Gradient from Image ~ Mosaic Tile Helper ~ Random Density Map ~ Subterranean Map Prettier ~ Tapered Stroke Path ~ Random Rotate Floating Layer ~ Batch Image to Pattern ~ Better Seamless Tiles ~ Tile Shuffle ~ Scale Pattern ~ Grid of Guides ~ Fractalize path ~ Label Points
My Maps: Finished Maps ~ Challenge Entries ~ My Portfolio: www.cartocopia.com
OK, I hope this works...Originally Posted by RobA
This is what my scaled pattern looks like when I've put it on a layer and burned it in with the 'antique paper' layer underneath.
This the same layer, but multiplied instead of burned.
Edited: OK, this is odd. The pattern file is at 128x128 by 72dpi? That would definitely cause some pixellation.
Thanks.
Neurowiz
Last edited by Chgowiz; 04-24-2008 at 10:50 PM.
If you're not printing the image, ignore dpi. It has zero effect on what you see on the screen. Can you also show us what it looks like at 600 X 600, so we have something to compare it to?
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
Actually, I should step back a little from that statement. It might make a difference, but I don't know how the Gimp handles dpi. If the software behaves properly, it shouldn't make a difference. If it doesn't, then that might, indeed, be the problem.
I'll leave it to Rob to say yea or nay on that one.
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
Sure, here is the pattern at 600, and then scaled down.
You can't see the pixellation in the above, so when I zoom in on the scaled down image, this is what I see:
Heh. Well, don't zoom in on it. That'll cause pixellation every time! Now that I know what I'm looking at, in terms of the workspace, I know exactly where the problem is, and that's the magnification. Don't try and judge the quality of your image at anything other than 100%; that's what your audience is going to be seeing it at, after all.
It looks terrific at actual size--better than the 600 px version, in fact--so there's really no need to worry about what it looks like zoomed in. If you want to make images that scale upward nicely without ever seeing that pixellation, take a look at Inkscape, a vector drawing program.
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
I'm sorry, I should have posted the full unzoomed version as well. Here is the full map, with no zoom, with the forest layer burned in. See the pixelation? Or is it supposed to look jagged like that with a burn? Should I blur it?
It looks a little better with multiply (see below), and I guess I could make it less opaque to get a similar effect to burn, but the pixelation was just bugging me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
