[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/gd/ - Graphic Design

[Advertise on 4chan]

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • There are 4 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.

[Advertise on 4chan]

File: 1605781778751.jpg (160 KB, 623x608)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
Recently I was sent specs for something and asked for it in vector... I honestly think they wanted me to paste a raster to a .ai file(that's a thing right) anyway I work in photoshop so everything I do is raster, but when I saw the print quality it had some jaggies, IMO it's the printer... still I tried to use an auto convert raster to vector and got some shit results with gradient banding... yes I know what vector is, but is there any program that legit can SOMEHOW convert raster to vector with great results? I mean a printer can't actually get better results from a vector graphic when I am using a super high res image... or is it the downsizing of the raster based image giving me jaggies because the image is actually too fucking large.... fuck.

if it helps it's being printed on fabric via some sort of printer paper and a heat press....
>is there any program that legit can SOMEHOW convert raster to vector with great results?
not really.
vector magic is the one that has given me the best results (you can easily torrent that one) but it really depends on the source image.
nothing gets better results than spending some hours with the pen tool in Ai

>can't actually get better results from a vector graphic when I am using a super high res image
well... infinite res > high res
but if we are talking about a real size raster @300dpi you shouldn't be able to tell the difference and it's a fuck up on the printer's side
>but if we are talking about a real size raster @300dpi you shouldn't be able to tell the difference and it's a fuck up on the printer's side
yeah about 5k pixels 300dpi for 15", not sure width but same density... I will make them overhaul their entire process sooner rather than later but they almost bungled the whole product by basically saying "dude, trust me" with some dogshit tier fabric, then I have been going over the physics of the fucking thing to make part of it that has 3 layers move/stretch the way I want physically without their help as well, and they have sucked cock on that as well.... only upside is the economics and specs are solid AF.... FFS I am even moving bulk vs high price(good for supplier bigger %) guess I have to earn them enough money for them to jump every time when I ask them something. You might have saved me, or at least help me save some face.

>yeah I totally know what I am doing (now) 8]

I will try vector magic again and see if I can get something without banding and maybe trim it like you suggest
I'm trying to make some spraypaint cutouts, now there are a number of ways to do this and I'm wondering which is the best way to maintain image quality.
I can handle the spraypaint but the programs are a bit new to me

small images:
Start in photoshop to create the image
reduce the colors with posterize
separate the layers with the magic select tool
use the trace tool to get an outline

Large images are not a problem, but require me to undertake exhaustive vectorization.
now I could just freehand in vector but
A. I can't freehand draw
B. I can't get this to work for photos, I can vectorize the tracings from photoshop but can't just seperate layers of an image by eye
try one of the auto vector programs anon recommended me in first post, it sounds like you just want the edge data, the reason I don't use it is because I have complex pieces of artwork with intense shading, get the background transparent save as png and send to that program directly, potentially even set contrast to 0/colorize the the desired color...
So I am currently auto-vectorizing the .png layers I put together in Photoshop, and I think that's OK.
>the reason I don't use it is because I have complex pieces of artwork with intense shading
I have exactly the same issue when I work from photos, hence I make them into layers in PS first and don't just start with vector.

Making the layers isn't always easy and I'm not sure the best way to do it.
Imagine I had a ball which was dark blue and black checkers.
A. I can use a color split method and two layers (blue/black)- but then how do I shade the ball
B. I can use a contrast method, where black/white defines the 3D shape- but then I loose most of the pattern.
C. split the colours and THEN contrast.
I'm not actually sure how you would do this, deleting the white section from both the black and blue layers on PS was awful because nothing ever matched up.
D. Contrast, then try to split your contrast sections into color layers.
I tried this too, you get a better result but end up with SO MANY LAYERS

I suspect there's techniques in the application like hand shading or spyaying the same colour/shade in two overlapping layers that artists use
File: IPfriendlyversion.jpg (196 KB, 1214x419)
196 KB
196 KB JPG
I have no idea I think for the vast majority of applications vectoring is completely unneeded, for my specific use case I simply whether if somehow the printer would essentially "gain quality" from a vector image somehow... I don't see how since my raster has way more quality but maybe it works better than essentially subsampling it does, maybe it's the fucking printer.

Can you tell me your use case, I don't really understand the technical specifics but I know from buying monitors PS essentially has it's own color space separate from the traditional one used but basically everyone else...that alone would seem to pose a problem to even being able to fully transfer over an image...

I think vector is outdated for many use cases though since working with textures as large as we can make now was before a pipe dream... still with photoshops save size limit I could see how a high quality image would be better as a raster once you start printing things like 3feet tall.... I guess technically if they looks the same to the naked eye the raster will always have better quality which is great if it weren't a one way street on ease of conversion....

What I can recommend no matter what is buying or downloading a copy of Topaz Gigapixel AI, I'm not sure if upscaling will help transferring to a vector but I think it would and at the very least it couldn't hurt... I have had some amazing results upscaling 400x400 artworks to literally 4000x4000 using the program + some creative filters like oil filter, picture related. I honestly think the best way for you may be to get stuff like edges vectorized and for complex shading simply get the highest resolution possible and filter, even if it involves things like blurring lighting, and simply making the vector at a huge size to give the raster portions as much quality as possible.... :S
fucking LOL
wut? :3
The issues I'm having are fairly technical.
Vector images have the same quality at any size, while this requires less processing power for large images the main advantage is the ability to make one image that can be printed in any size.
So thats an optimizer, it's fine for what it is but really you should start with vector images or raster images that are the right size to begin with

My issues actually relate to the order of procedures in raster before vectorizing
thanks anyway anon
it's AI upscaling, sure I could limit my choice to only the "right size" images but good designs make money, and I'd rather have money with 90% quality than none with 100%, that snippet is literally less than a quarter inch on product, you couldn't tell the difference unless the original was side by side.
I know what vectors are I just think they are kind of useless besides large print, their color space sucks ass, eventually we will be running 16k screens and a 10gb file will be medium size, subsampling decreases quality on monitors but for print as computers/monitors get better vectors become less useful for a certain size image vs better color space raster since the output on print scaling wise is about the same with superior color space from raster sources
How does inkscape NOT have an eraser tool for nodes?
There is no way I have to select several hundred and manually delete them, fuck that
Fuck this program is driving me nuts, so many "features".
When I wrap a text to an object I can't rotate it around the object- I have to rotate the whole object.
So if I want to path multiple texts, I have to clone the object and repeat the process.

Fine, ok.
But when I try to rotate the object, the text seems to pull the rotation axis off the center of the object- which becomes critical when multiple texts are aligned around a circle.

I could do this faster on MS word desu

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.