| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Topic : "Starting an image.... what resolution?" |
Nirox
junior member
Member #
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:00 am |
 |
 |
 Im just curious..
when I start a new image, the size is about 1600 x 1200
so its nice and big and if I wanted to use it as a background I could
but I have noticed some of Craig Mullins art is REALLY high res
is this a normal thing to do? make it HUGE resolution so making details is easier?
if so... what's the average size? 3200 x 2400 ?
I noticed that I can't cut out a piece of my paintings
to show detail...without seeing pixels..
how big must your image be to be able to cut out a piece
to show detail...without having pixels showing up?
 or am I just drinking to much old eggnog?
_________________
~ Jorge "Nirox" M |
|
| Back to top |
|
Snakebyte
member
Member #
Joined: 04 Feb 2000
Posts: 360
Location: GA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:45 pm |
|
|
BIG I like to make my BIG Canvases BIGxBIG. BIGGER the better.
_________________
Kevin Moore
www.darkesthorizons.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nirox
junior member
Member #
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:23 pm |
|
|
how big is big?
give me numbers!! =)
_________________
~ Jorge "Nirox" M |
|
| Back to top |
|
Snakebyte
member
Member #
Joined: 04 Feb 2000
Posts: 360
Location: GA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nirox
junior member
Member #
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:19 pm |
|
|
damn!!
ive been using 1600x 1200
and I thought that was big
I guess if im gona use those sizes i need more ram...
_________________
~ Jorge "Nirox" M |
|
| Back to top |
|
Snakebyte
member
Member #
Joined: 04 Feb 2000
Posts: 360
Location: GA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:51 pm |
|
|
I have 2GIG's of ram and use as much as 150+ layers.
Layers is the greatest reason for slowdown, if you can consolidate your layering better than I can than less ram is still workable.
Also, one reason to work BIG is for printing. The BIGGER the better the print. Working at lower resolutions is still just fine, 1600x1200 is still good, in fact Dhabih works at the resolution you see in his posts ie. 800x600 (that is if I'm not mistaken).
_________________
Kevin Moore
www.darkesthorizons.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nirox
junior member
Member #
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 9:29 pm |
|
|
i dont know wbout that... i think he just posts his lower rez images
just like mullins never releases his full resolution images
=)
ill try bigger =)
but i only have 512 mb of ram
i should get another 512...its cheap now anyways
_________________
~ Jorge "Nirox" M |
|
| Back to top |
|
Max
member
Member #
Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 3210
Location: MIND
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:42 am |
|
|
I like a resolution of 2000 x 2000.
I would choose higher but.....
My comp can only handle this in greyscale.
I have 64mb ram and that's abit....�|I need money!|� |
|
| Back to top |
|
eyewoo
member
Member #
Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 2662
Location: Carbondale, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:35 am |
|
|
My starting rez for most of what I work on now is 12" x 18" at 300 ppi. That works out to 3600 x 5400 pixels. I then add a couple more hundred pixels around the edge for a gray border which I keep on the top layer. That space is just used for drawing overshoots near the edge of a picture. Because its the top layer, the overshoots get hidden by the gray border. Much better than just hitting a hard edge. When the pic is done, I simply remove the border's several hundred pixels around the image.
Like Snakebyte, I also have 2 gigs of RAM. To work large, lots'a RAM is really required... My next machine will have at least 3 gigs, if not more.
Max... you doing well, my man, for just 64 meg of RAM...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nirox
junior member
Member #
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:45 am |
|
|
3 gigs of ram...
damn =)
what's your current machine specs?
just curious what a pro artist system might be
and ill try to get as much more ram as i can =)
thanks for the tips
_________________
~ Jorge "Nirox" M |
|
| Back to top |
|
eyewoo
member
Member #
Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 2662
Location: Carbondale, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 10:46 am |
|
|
My current specs? A custom machine built by a friend:
2 gigs ram (need more RAM)
dual 1.5 gig processors (need to be faster)
300 gigs on four hardrives (one removable)
dual monitors (could add a third... not sure why, though)
DVD drive (need DVD burner)
CD-ROM player/burner
using XP Pro
Also on a network with access to two other machines and their harddrives.
AND ALL THIS STUFF IS GETTING OLD AND OUTDATED!!! WILL IT EVER END!!! 
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nirox
junior member
Member #
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:52 pm |
|
|
ah then my computer isnt so bad
its an amd 2000+
512 mb ddr pc2700 =)
ill probably add another 512
im only an amature
dont need more =)
thanks eyewoo
_________________
~ Jorge "Nirox" M |
|
| Back to top |
|
Max
member
Member #
Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 3210
Location: MIND
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:24 pm |
|
|
That's unfair. You guys have got monster machines. Mine is 4 years old....I still need money but I got a new wacom so there's no money left....
*Dual monitor* - that's just a dream.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
egerie
member
Member #
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 693
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:22 pm |
|
|
eyewoo :  that spec list seriously wanted to make me cry.. I mean.. can I get your 'old' machine when the new one will roll in ?!
*gives up on plan to get a new pc and will get herself a gaming console instead.*
Someday, hopefully, we'll hit a plateau in term of pc technology and what kind of a machine is needed to even do poster-size print.... As for 3D work, nothing will be powerfull enough until we can animate and have rendered quality in each viewports  *daydream daydream*..
_________________
-Aline
ALINE ART - La new page ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
eyewoo
member
Member #
Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 2662
Location: Carbondale, CO
|
|
| Back to top |
|
balistic
member
Member #
Joined: 01 Jun 2000
Posts: 2599
Location: Reno, NV, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:05 pm |
|
|
Start low and the up-res as you work. Get your composition roughed in at maybe 1000 pixels across. This lets you work with big brushes and still have them act responsively. Once your composition is looking solid, double the size and do your medium-level details. Double it again for when you're ready to start painting eyelashes and other small details.
Starting out with a huge canvas is kind of shooting yourself in the foot, because your rough sketch needs to be done fluidly . . . dragging a 400-pixel brush across an 8 megapixel image tends to be anything but fluid.
And you don't lose any detail by upsampling the way I've described, because you're doing it before you've added any.
I know that both Craig Mullins and Jason Manly use this technique, at least for work that is destined for high-resolution output.
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nirox
junior member
Member #
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:30 pm |
|
|
well i guess that seems to work just fine
but i dont work that way =\
i just dive into my images... i dont really make small detail last =\
_________________
~ Jorge "Nirox" M |
|
| Back to top |
|
balistic
member
Member #
Joined: 01 Jun 2000
Posts: 2599
Location: Reno, NV, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:49 pm |
|
|
| Nirox wrote: |
well i guess that seems to work just fine
but i dont work that way =\
i just dive into my images... i dont really make small detail last =\ |
Usually, it's best to work "from the general to the specific" . . . the idea behind this is that you want to make sure you've got a solid foundation and composition before you start adding details . . . If something doesn't look good as a thumbnail after an hour's work, you might have problems with the composition later on.
Granted, digital paintings are more flexible than real ones when it comes to moving things around mid-stream, but I think it's still good practice to work from the big shapes down to the small ones.
And don't forget to flip your canvas on the horizontal axis from time to time . . . it'll help you spot your mistakes and find weak spots in the layout.
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nirox
junior member
Member #
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 4:12 pm |
|
|
i would have never have thought about fliping it...
thanks for the tips
=)
if you got any more
ill gladly hear them
_________________
~ Jorge "Nirox" M |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lunatique
member
Member #
Joined: 27 Jan 2001
Posts: 3303
Location: Lincoln, California
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:01 am |
|
|
| 8.5" x 11" at 300 dpi is the standard for me right now. The reason? I figured that in the worst case scenerio, I could at least have my work printed at a decent size clear enough for a magazine cover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Snakebyte
member
Member #
Joined: 04 Feb 2000
Posts: 360
Location: GA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
B0b
member
Member #
Joined: 14 Jul 2002
Posts: 1807
Location: Sunny Dorset, England
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 2:27 am |
|
|
| eyewoo wrote: |
My current specs? A custom machine built by a friend:
2 gigs ram (need more RAM)
dual 1.5 gig processors (need to be faster)
300 gigs on four hardrives (one removable)
dual monitors (could add a third... not sure why, though)
DVD drive (need DVD burner)
CD-ROM player/burner
using XP Pro
Also on a network with access to two other machines and their harddrives.
AND ALL THIS STUFF IS GETTING OLD AND OUTDATED!!! WILL IT EVER END!!! |
hehe tell me about it, got a dual 1.1Ghz PIII with 2Gb RAM and i'm lookin @ my next PC l8r this year with Dual XP2600+ (or higher) with 4Gb RAM (if i can find a board which will allow it ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Snakebyte
member
Member #
Joined: 04 Feb 2000
Posts: 360
Location: GA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:55 am |
|
|
Good luck BOb, It's hard to find a good board that has more than 3 Dimm's. I was lucky, I did the Intel thing and got a 3.06GHz and a Granite Bay (but only got 2Gigs of ram). Up till now all there was to choose from was a vast veriety of 3 Dimm'ed boards.
_________________
Kevin Moore
www.darkesthorizons.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
kahboom
member
Member #
Joined: 27 Nov 2001
Posts: 83
Location: Cambridge MA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 4:04 pm |
|
|
My old machine only really lets me work well at around 5-8 Meg file sizes. It's fine, as long as I don't try to print anything. Filters are useless on my machine, but then filters are pretty useless anyways. Thankfully, I have a new box on its way (come to papa!)... It's a Voodoo Athlon 2800 with a gig of ram, and an overclocked Radeon 9700. To top it off, I'm replacing my 17 inch monitor with the gorgeous Sony FW900 24 inch widescreen. I've been doing traditional media mostly for a year or two because of my sad old machine. With the new one, I expect I'll be able to swing 60 Meg files or so. Nice to hear how y'all deal with scaling up and putting borders in. Very interesting.
Wonder if the wide aspect ratio monitor will make it harder to use the Wacom???
_________________
Visionbin |
|
| Back to top |
|
B0b
member
Member #
Joined: 14 Jul 2002
Posts: 1807
Location: Sunny Dorset, England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:05 am |
|
|
u'll have to go into the expert tools and set the tablet slightly shorter in height to accomodate the widescreen format
i worked on a 24" sony a few years back, it was gr8, a little blury but still very nice being able to have all my director pallets up on screen and not have to worry about moving any
and the extended timeline was bliss |
|
| Back to top |
|
hamilton
member
Member #
Joined: 10 Jun 2001
Posts: 143
Location: minnesota
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:48 am |
|
|
jesus christ almighty.
i guess i'm not necessarily "top of the line" on my 700mhz 256k hp pavilion, with 30gb of hard drive space.
oh well. i usually sketch at 800x600 and then blow my sketch up to 2000 or 3000 width. or whatever. something like that.
_________________
-={hamilton.likes.to.draw...}=- |
|
| Back to top |
|
kahboom
member
Member #
Joined: 27 Nov 2001
Posts: 83
Location: Cambridge MA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:57 am |
|
|
Thx, BOb
_________________
Visionbin |
|
| Back to top |
|
B0b
member
Member #
Joined: 14 Jul 2002
Posts: 1807
Location: Sunny Dorset, England
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2003 7:09 am |
|
|
| hamilton wrote: |
jesus christ almighty.
i guess i'm not necessarily "top of the line" on my 700mhz 256k hp pavilion, with 30gb of hard drive space. |
hehehe i have my music on a 30Gb HDD |
|
| Back to top |
|
B0b
member
Member #
Joined: 14 Jul 2002
Posts: 1807
Location: Sunny Dorset, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 12:32 pm |
|
|
| Found a Dual AMD setup the Tiger MP (S2460) supports 4Gb of RAM, but prolly ony see 3.8Gb cos of memory needed for the 64bit PCI slots |
|
| Back to top |
|
haohmaru
member
Member #
Joined: 09 Jan 2001
Posts: 206
Location: graz | austria
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:41 pm |
|
|
*hugs his pc.
i like my computer. he's doing his best to prevent me from working too fast. i rethink every stroke three times before actually making it, because i know it will take quite some time to get a second try...
huge resolutions? pfff!
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
