Minion's image guide for retards

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Sat May 13, 2006 10:59 pm

I actually asked you to admit your wrong when it was pointed out that you were wrong. Not to backpeddle and make the excuse 'No, I didn't mean it that way'.

So let's go back to basics:

1) We don't freakin' care about color printing. This is not AnimeMusicPrintouts.org You fucked up, making assumptions about file format color spaces and now won't shut up as you try to cover your ass. No one cares.

2) You have yeilded no useful information in this thread that will benifit the users of this site. If anything the information you have given us in this thread that will miss lead users into making mistakes.

3) Your crap about TIFF is useless as well as Premiere will flatten a TIFF and treat it as an RGB bitmate anyway, just like it does for everything else. Premiere actually ignores the layers in a TIFF even, making using it mostly useless. Also, maybe you should have mentioned that TIFF features lossy JPEG compression as an option?

4) DPI pretty much means nothing if you're not working for print, which as stated before, we are not. 720x480 is still 720x480 at 72dpi or 300dpi or anything you select. Unless you're working with dimensions in inches or cm, but you would have to be an idiot to do that if you're working on graphics that arn't for print. (Which, just to remind you agian, we are not doing) Infact, when working on a small, broadcast scale image in Photoshop, having the image to 300dpi has one actual effect. It makes the fonts big as hell. Even 10pt is pretty obtuse. Wow, goody.

There's a reason we don't talk about the incredably high DPI of our encodes.

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:26 pm

DJ_Izumi wrote:
1) We don't freakin' care about color printing.

2) You have yeilded no useful information in this thread that will benifit the users of this site.

3) Your crap about TIFF is useless as well as Premiere will flatten a TIFF and treat it as an RGB bitmate anyway, just like it does for everything else. Premiere actually ignores the layers in a TIFF even, making using it mostly useless. Also, maybe you should have mentioned that TIFF features lossy JPEG compression as an option?

4) DPI pretty much means nothing if you're not working for print

1. do you skip over the word example whenever you see it?

2. i'd say i was pretty accurate.
300 dpi tiff for video
72dpi jpeg for web
both in rgb color modes.
sure theres other ways, but this is prefered.

3. you should flatten it before you take it into your video software (as you should with any image format), and save a psd with layers as backup.
as for mentioning compression, why? most people would have enough since to use the default "none" option.

4. .......(holds back laughter)

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:45 pm

Yeah. Laugh it up. Cause you've been so right about everything else you've laughed about in this thread.

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:59 pm

Also. I'm sorta curious here Mr. Graphics Designer...

I looked at your Kill Sephiroth video. You didn't correct for the aspect ratio of the video. So you have the wide screen footage crammed into 720x480 when it should be at something about 848 or 856x480 or put in a container that supports anamorphic playback. (Of course, your graphic art for the video was rendered at 4:3 PAR (Which, even for DVD wouldn't look right since you made no correction for DVD's PAR) would be stretched out...

Do you -really- think you should be doing graphics and design when you can't even get the aspect ratio correct? Or do you think it's cool that Cloud looks extra tall and skinny?

Also... Compress your audio... Geez. More data is actually used for the uncompressed audio than the compressed video.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun May 14, 2006 12:45 am

Minion wrote:i didn't say everyone's screen runs at 72 dpi. i said it's what people use for posting pictures on the web. saved just about any picture in a website's layout, and 90% of the time, it's resolution is 72dpi.

Actually, I didn't say that my screen ran at any particular dpi, either. The text rendering subsystem operates at the dpi that it reads from Xorg, which can either calculate it or take a user-defined value.

Describing images as intrinsically possessing a dpi attribute independent of a display device doesn't make any sense, as dpi is a property of a physical display device, not of an image. (Hence the "i", i.e. "inch". Digital image size is traditionally described in terms of pixels, and pixels have no fixed physical size.)

Of course, if this is wrong, feel free to rebuke it -- with facts, not with puerile polemic.

You can tag TIFF files (and probably others -- I'm just familiar with libtiff's tagging capabilities) with that sort of information, but it is meaningless without additional data.

and yes, tiff is the industry standard for printing. png is not used at any print house i've been in (xerographic for a random example)
and the question about where, i work, i'm a freelancer in orlando

If something is not a standard, that doesn't mean it sucks -- or, to quote you,

will rape your image of it's quality

.

Have you read the PNG specification? If so, can you point out to me the specific parts of the specification that induce unacceptable image quality loss?

I can't help but notice that you have yet to provide any evidence that PNG is deficient for video work, which is where you originally put it.

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sun May 14, 2006 12:48 pm

DJ_Izumi wrote:Also. I'm sorta curious here Mr. Graphics Designer...

I looked at your Kill Sephiroth video. You didn't correct for the aspect ratio of the video. So you have the wide screen footage crammed into 720x480 when it should be at something about 848 or 856x480 or put in a container that supports anamorphic playback. (Of course, your graphic art for the video was rendered at 4:3 PAR (Which, even for DVD wouldn't look right since you made no correction for DVD's PAR) would be stretched out...

Do you -really- think you should be doing graphics and design when you can't even get the aspect ratio correct? Or do you think it's cool that Cloud looks extra tall and skinny?

Also... Compress your audio... Geez. More data is actually used for the uncompressed audio than the compressed video.

in short, it looks good on a projector, and it doesn't bother me enough to fix it for a computer screen.
and as for the audio, i know. thats just me being too lazt to ever open besweet.

Pwolf · Post by **Pwolf** » Sun May 14, 2006 1:16 pm

not to add to the "arguement" but the 300dpi for video statements can be a little missleading as well...

When working with still images, unless the image was created or scaned at 300dpi you shouldn't even bother converting an existing image (at 72dpi) to 300dpi. tell me if i'm wrong tho :/

As for working with full frame stills, like Corran mentioned before, making a 720x480 image just becasue thats your video's frame size might end up screwing up when it's played back at the correct par... i always make an image at the correct framesize (640x480 for 4:3) then resize it to 720x480 to compensate when i export the video later. I never use tiffs, except in FCP, I've used BMP and PNG (mostly PNG now) and havn't witnessed any loss with either format.

You had made a comment that PNG isn't widely used on websites. Thats not exactly true, but you can blame microsoft for not implementing PNG correctly in IE for that one

really sucks when you want to use an alpha channel and most of the viewers on your site can't see the image correctly... i think i spent an extra hour or two messing with jpegs and site code to make the site look right. could've done the entire thing in 10 - 30min with a few pngs :/

Pwolf

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Sun May 14, 2006 1:19 pm

Minion wrote:in short, it looks good on a projector, and it doesn't bother me enough to fix it for a computer screen.
and as for the audio, i know. thats just me being too lazt to ever open besweet.

That's not the right answer. If you're using a computer connected to a projector or a television or anything, the aspect ratio is still serverly screwed up. You are aware that FFVII:AC was wide screen right?

This has nothing to do with 'fixing it for a computer screen', you fucked it up for EVERY display method possible. Except encoding it to MPEG 2, tossing it on a DVD and checking 16:9 for the aspect ratio, and this would still stretch out your display.

And the fact that you think it 'Looks okay on a projector' only underlines the fact that you have absolutely no visual eye for how an image is supposed to look

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sun May 14, 2006 1:39 pm

Pwolf wrote:not to add to the "arguement" but the 300dpi for video statements can be a little missleading as well...

When working with still images, unless the image was created or scaned at 300dpi you shouldn't even bother converting an existing image (at 72dpi) to 300dpi. tell me if i'm wrong tho :/

i know that doesn't sound right that it would look better, but it does.
drop in 2 medium sized jpegs into a video. the original at 72dpi, and another converted to 300dpi. the 300dpi looks sharper.
i honestly can't explain this one. only give a theory. perhaps it multiplys each pixel instead of just making larger blocks?

Minion · Post by **Minion** » Sun May 14, 2006 1:44 pm

DJ_Izumi wrote:And the fact that you think it 'Looks okay on a projector' only underlines the fact that you have absolutely no visual eye for how an image is supposed to look

no visual eye? i'm a graphic designer, dude.
how did you get into attacking my videos anyways? has nothing to do with this topic. it's bullshit to attack my credability on a different subject all together.
and at no time did i suggest using 720x480(though it may be my personal preference). i gave an example, involving 720x480.