You shouldn't see pixelation on a downscale... What was the resampling option you used? (Cubic is the best available in 2.2 IIR)
-Rob A>
You shouldn't see pixelation on a downscale... What was the resampling option you used? (Cubic is the best available in 2.2 IIR)
-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
Uh, this is where I fumble my GIMP Knowledge roll that was apparently DC10 and I just did a 1.Originally Posted by RobA
Oh, you mean quality on the scaling dialog! Let me try that...
Well, that didn't help so much. When I use either pattern as a fill for my forest layer , after I "burn" it on top of my 'paper' layer, it still looks pixelly. It doesn't look as smooth as what I had hoped.
Now please forgive a beginner, but if I'm going from a 600px by 600 px (600dpi) picture to a 128px by 128px, I'm assuming I'm going to get some pixellation? Is this just something I have to live with?
Thanks for being patient...
Neurowiz
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 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...
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:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
