| Author |
|
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 8:45am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
I frequently scan at 600-800 ppi.
Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Guest79877180
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2387
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 8:47am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
I will try it when I get home tonight. Thanks again Matthew & everyone!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Vladimir Fiks
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 1138
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 8:57am | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
Matthew Hansel wrote:
Matthew (and, I too, feel like I'm talking to
myself):
I scan at a HIGH resolution, which may help and I think that Vlad has
already suggested.
Good luck.
Matthew Hanselmatthewphansel@mac.com |
|
|
Actually it was Anthony, but you are quite right, if you scan in the line art
mode high rez is a must. The difference between line art and graycsale is
that in grayscale mode anti-aliasing (or grey pixels added to the edge)
which creates a smoother adge.
The line art mode has no anti-aliasing and the edge is rougher
That's why it needs a much higher resolution to capture the detail. I
would suggest 600 dpi or even higher for high quality reproduction. Also
because it does not have gray pixels the blacks look more solid.
Hope this is of interest to somebody. :)
Professor Vlad LOL
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Guest79877180
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2387
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:05am | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Professor Vlad - very much interest here. One of the things I
have a problem with is when I scan at too high a dpi, my computer,
although it's nothing to sneeze at, gets a little -wonky- and has a
hard time because of the large size.
I'm on a PC, which I attribute most of the problem to, plus I think
that Photoshop for PC's is a bit -wonky- as well. I don't think
it works as well as Photoshop for the Mac. Even when I airbrush
on it, there sometimes has a tendency to have lag and delays by several
strokes.
Or maybe I just don't know what I'm doing...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:05am | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
When I'm doing most stuff, I'm working LARGER than printed size, so scanning at a HIGH resolution and then shrinking the art down to published size usually gives me a crisp scan that requires not a whole lot'o modification!
Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Andrew Hess
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9846
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:16am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
okay, I tried out the ArtPad site. Here is my contribution to the thread:
Not Batman
Drawing this way with a mouse is still like drawing with a brick, and the
end results reminds me of marker comps (anyone here remember those?).
I'll have to see if I can borrow a Wacom and try again.
The cool thing about this site is it looks like the drawing is just falling out
of the brush/pencil.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Vladimir Fiks
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 1138
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:16am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Matthew T. Carpenter, Sr. wrote:
Professor Vlad - very much interest
here. One of the things I
have a problem with is when I scan at too high a dpi, my computer,
although it's nothing to sneeze at, gets a little -wonky- and has a
hard time because of the large size.
I'm on a PC, which I attribute most of the problem to, plus I think
that Photoshop for PC's is a bit -wonky- as well. I don't think
it works as well as Photoshop for the Mac. Even when I airbrush
on it, there sometimes has a tendency to have lag and delays by several
strokes.
Or maybe I just don't know what I'm doing...
|
|
|
Hmm, while that may have been true in the past, it's probably no longer
the case. From everything I've read and seen, Photoshop works on
modern PC's pretty much the same as on the Mac. If you have an older
computer it may have to do with the processor speed, that would
certainly account for the lag. It could also be a case of not enough RAM. A
general rule of thumb is 5 Mb of RAM for each Mb of file size should be
available to Photoshop. :) Much easier these days with the low prices of
RAM than in the past when we had rely on virtual memory of scratch
disks.
Vlad
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rich Henderson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 January 2005
Posts: 754
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:35am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
Matthew T. Carpenter, Sr. wrote:
| my computer, although it's nothing to sneeze at, gets a little -wonky |
|
|
A couple of questions - how much ram do you have? What is your processor speed? How much of available ram do you have allocated to PS? Do you have more than one hard drive and is the "scratch disk" located on a disk other than the PS program disk? Let me know and I might be able to give some suggestions. 300 dpi is a print industry standard but it is almost always good to go to 600 dpi and go down to 300. A point to remember is that your size will double going from 600 to 300. Therefore if you want a 10 x 15 finale, you can scan 5 x 7.5 at 600, get a crisper line and then change it to 300 for 10 x 15. At 600 dpi you needn't scan at a large format. Hope that helps a bit.
edit - same thing Vlad stated.
Edited by Rich Henderson on 01 July 2005 at 9:38am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Guest79877180
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2387
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:55am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Off the top of my head:
Dell PC (wife works there)
Intell 2.6 gig processor (can't remember if P3 or P4)
1 gig RAM (can't remember which RAM)
I'll check all my other settings later and update this tonight.
I've been thinking of wiping my Hard Drive and starting again.
What if, and I think some of you are suggesting this, I scan at 600 dpi
then shrink it to 300 dpi when I go to work on it? When I do
this, it helps quite a bit.
Really appreciate ALL your help here.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Guest79877180
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2387
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:56am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Andrew - very cool! Great job.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Vladimir Fiks
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 1138
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 10:03am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Andrew Hess wrote:
okay, I tried out the ArtPad site. Here is my
contribution to the thread:
Not Batman
Drawing this way with a mouse is still like drawing with a brick, and the
end results reminds me of marker comps (anyone here remember those?).
I'll have to see if I can borrow a Wacom and try again.
The cool thing about this site is it looks like the drawing is just falling out
of the brush/pencil. |
|
|
That's really well done Andrew.
Vlad
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Vladimir Fiks
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 1138
|
| Posted: 01 July 2005 at 10:10am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
Darren Taylor wrote:
Here's another couple of Thing sketches:
|
|
|
Dude, Love your take on the Thing.
Vlad
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
