Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

21

It's due to the Index Color mode. GIF and PNG8 use a locked color palette, therefore the layer gets locked to prevent unsupported changes. It's also why the layer is titled Index. To unlock it choose Image > Mode > RGB from the menu.


10

As people have commented, coding would yield the best solution. You can get a good approximation using Image > Adjustments > Gradient Map... Fill a canvas with 400% noise: Filter using Pixelate > Mosaic... Increase the saturation: And re-tone the image with Gradient Map: Result:


7

You should be exporting directly to the pixel dimensions you need from the original Illustrator file. You'll probably do just fine altering the size in the save for web dialog rather than creating a scaled vector version for every instance.


7

It's going to largely depend on the original size. Photoshop is many things, but it's not magic. It can do some fairly impressive things with pixel interpolation but there's a limit. I would suggest using "Image" -> "Image Size..." and scaling it that way - at least it will scale consistently. I am not quite sure how exact you need to be when you say "any" ...


6

I'm sure there are other (better?) alternatives, but S-Spline interpolation creates pretty good-looking images. A quick Google search revealed this tool: PhotoZoom Pro. Also, here's a lengthy comparison of different interpolation techniques and tools: Digital Photo Interpolation - what is the best image resizing / resampling method?


5

I think the main features you're after are: Being able to paint with a non-antialiased pencil or brush. Nearest neighbour scaling (keep blocky things blocky when you scale). Non-antialiased selections. Layers. Being able to export the formats you'll need (PNG? GIF?). Based on that criteria, there’s a few tools that can do it. Pixen is awesome, and worth ...


4

Grid is not a vector object, therefore you can't fill it. The best way to do what you want is drawing the shape you want to fill using the Bezier line tool with "snap to grid" option on. (As I can see on your screenshot this option is enabled for you). Then your drawing will fit the grid as you place points. The final step: fill your shape with the color ...


4

The best way is to start with a 16x16 file and hand tweak each pixel.


4

You should rasterize it in the right pixel dimensions directly from Illustrator whenever possible, but when you're resizing things in Photosohop there is a choice of resampling modes: Nearest Neighbor - This is the simplest form of resampling, if you can even call it that, where the original pixels are just expanded to the next full pixel to fill the new ...


4

You can't, at least practically speaking. An image only has so many pixels. To enlarge the photo, you either need to make the individual pixels bigger (it will be noticeably pixelated) or you need to make up extra pixels in between (it will typically be noticeably blurry). For slight enlarging, the latter is usually acceptable--especially with some careful ...


4

When evaluating graphics software for pixel art this is the kind of tools I'm looking for: The most well known software that is also great for pixel art is Photoshop. If you don't have access to it and are looking for the next best alternative, look at GIMP. I've been happily using it on Macs since around 2010 and it has everything you need for pixel ...


3

There is many ways to accomplish that dept of field effect you are looking for, so I'll just link you to some of the tutorials I found: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/creating-shallow-depth-of-field-using-gimp-9722 http://tutorialgeek.blogspot.com.ar/2011/02/fake-depth-of-field-in-gimp-dof.html http://gimpguru.org/tutorials/simulateddof/ ...


3

Voxels are by definition 3 dimensional elements but your graphic has no 3 dimensional information to it. You will need to somehow define 3D information for your shapes. One simple approach would be to import your vector image into a 3D tool (3ds max, Maya, Blender, etc.) and extrude the shape. However the 3D model generated this way may not look like what ...


3

I think the usual trick is to scale down so that you lose resolution and then scale up to magnify the low-res image. So with Imagemagick, something like this: convert -scale 10% -scale 1000% original.jpg pixelated.jpg UPDATE: if you just want to be able to specify a single "pixelation amount" value, then the above command can be wrapped in a shell script ...


3

There are good plugins for that: onOne Perfect Resize (formerly known as Genuine Fractals) AKVIS Magnifier I prefer onOne's one. You can try them for some period of time before buying.


3

The viewing distance of an image is somehow proportional to the size of the print. For example you normaly do not see a magazine from across the street, and you do not see a billboard verey close. That means that you can use the same photo on a magazine and on a billboard. If you have a 10Mpx photo, gess what? You use your 10Mpx photo. (This images ...


2

With this particular image, I'd scale it up with Image Size at 200%, using bicubic interpolation, and then correct the issues. The only areas where pixelation will be noticeable will be: the arrow symbol. Was that based on a dingbat font symbol? If so, should be easy to recreate. the right hand angled outline. Copy a rectangular area from just left of the ...


2

171x100 pixels gives you an image that is slightly more than 1/2 inch wide at 300 pixels per inch. I'm taking a guess that this is not the size you specified in the Illustrator document, which is why your output was pixellated, and when you worked in inches inside Photoshop you then got a correct result in Illustrator. A 2 inch image at 300 ppi is 600 ...


2

If you have ruby installed this might be a possible option for you. See this gist https://gist.github.com/71598aeb1d823c9229ac It uses chunky_png to pixellate the image, so you may need to adapt the code slightly if you want to produce other file formats. For more information about it see this link ...


2

For screen or print? For screen, the resolution setting is ignored. What matters is the number of pixels you are using and the resolution of the screen itself. An Apple retina screen is going to look a lot smoother than a non retina screen, as it has a lot more pixels per inch, for example. In addition, there's the issue of anti-aliasing, which is where ...


2

I would build a segment by hand and then apply it as a pattern. You could also build the segment in Illustrator and create a pattern brush with it.


2

I was able to achieve something similar, try the following: Click the screenshots for full resolution Create a new document with relatively small dimensions. Select the Pen tool, change the size to 1px Edit the Brush settings (Window → Brush) for Spacing I set Spacing at 750% Edit the Brush settings for Scattering I set Scatter at 1000% and ...


2

There is no way for an algorithm to know exactly how you'd like an aliased edge to look when resized. The program doesn't know what you're trying to draw. So if you try to resize a shape with absolutely no anti-aliasing whatsoever, you may get unwanted results. This problem has been somewhat curbed with the latest content-aware updates to PS, but it has not ...


2

You often need to set the Document Raster Effects Settings (DRES) in the Effects Menu to work correctly if you are using effects which are raster based, such as glows and shadows. Even if you are creating artwork for screen output it can help to increase the DRES setting. However, be aware, a higher DRES means slower screen redrawing for raster effects. ...


2

PikoPixel is a free pixel-art editor.          Easy to use Unlimited undo Supports multiple layers Customizable canvas background Hotkey-activated popup panels Export upscaled images Runs on OS X 10.4 Tiger & later


2

Silly me. I found a solution in my bash history. I needed to set -filter point. convert from.png -interpolate Nearest -filter point -resize 800% to.png The default filter appears to be Cubic for me. Interestingly, -interpolate Nearest doesn't seem to affect the output at all and may not be needed above. I'd love to know why and won't accept this as the ...


2

The issue is pretty much as you state in the question. A pixel-sharp image requires that your drawing aligns with the pixel grid. If your original was 30x30, any multiple of that will produce a pixel-sharp image as 1px will be converted to exactly 2px, or 3px, or 4, etc. 128, however, is 4.26 times as large as 30. So 1 px in your original is now 4 and one ...


2

You have, in effect, answered your own question: As I understand, pixels are thrown out when sized down so it may be impossible to maintain crispness in thin lines...? This is the reason why what you are asking is not possible. The resolution of your monitor does not have anything to do with the process that is taking place when you downsize. You ...


2

Take a screen shot - don't photograph (this will avoid screen patterns). Manipulate screenshot in image editing program of your choice (which should support layers, masking, and provide tools for creating blur effects). Create tilted/perspective look by turning your screenshot into its own layer then adjusting the bounding box of that layer to create the ...


1

There's a whole category "grain scan" products that are created for just this type of effect. They're produced by companies that actually scan exposed and developed films expressly for the purpose of capturing the grain pattern to replicate the effect of that specific film with a digital image. Most of these products are geared toward video production and ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible