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.
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).
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.
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 :-)
Bye,
Ken
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
