On May 17, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Troy James Sobotka wrote:
--- Ken Said ---
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.
---
_Anyone_ who has done art in a digital medium knows this.
Erm, I would hope so, but sadly this is not always the case.
What I have suggested is that you scale the image after you
shrink it merely for viewing in the proper aspect ratio.
Further, what we are talking about here is 80 lines of 1:1
resolution stretched from the 640x400 antialised image. If
you use even the most rudimentary of scalers, it should
approximate close enough.
Again, the 'stretched' version is what the final usplash
will be based on.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear. It simply makes viewing
what it will look like in the final product one step
closer to reality.
Now I understand, I think...
Unless I misunderstood something again, you are suggesting to judge
the design based upon the "normal" image (not pre-scaled) and to
judge the anti-aliasing and other more technical issues based on the
pre-scaled version. If this is correct, I totally agree :-)
Bye,
Ken
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
