Yes yes I know. But I don't know any other forums that have a section like this one where people can ask general computer questions and get an intelligent answer, and fairly quickly as well. A lot of you guys really know your computer shit. Neoseeker has something like it, but they've got so many different forums, that many of them go unnoticed for weeks or even years at a time. And I'm not registered anywhere else that pays host to any sort of computer nerd. So Anski, I know you really want to hassle me for making another thread in here. Just let it out fast, will ya?
The rest of you, I have an inquiry that perhaps you can help me with.
You see, I need to enlarge an image without it losing resolution. Is this physically possible? I'm talking like, a freakin' 216 x 650 into a 1080 x 3250. In fact, I'd prefer to make it even larger than that. Is it possible to do this without pixelation? If so, what software would I need? Can it be done?
it can be done in photoshop, I know, but it will be blurry...
What happens is that photoshop blends it so that it looks smooth, but, it's kinda like looking at the background of a pic, it just isn't a clear as it should be...
If you need, I'll give it a shot, perhaps I might be able to make it a bit clearer too, but I'm not promising anything.
FUCK YOU FOR MAKING THREADS THIS ISN'T A FOURM IT'S A JAIL
But no, there's nothing that can be done, honestly. It's unfortunate but theoretically impossible with current technology.
It's physically impossible to resize an image 5x without it looking pixelated or blurry. A program can't just create information when resizing an image and make it look like a photo that didn't undergo enlargement. The best it can do is add interpolation, which basically just makes it look blurry and awful.
Original:
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2F8OzsY.jpg&hash=b61322b94ebb0c9709dc4cd7bc3436f8d713eb7b)
5x cropped with bicubic interpolation:
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2F7XSW1.jpg&hash=94409d06546ada07d1be9928e3b0e290a0dd1538)
I was basically going to draw in fixes... so that way it would nice, but not really... perfect or nothing...
You're going to draw in fixes on something resized five times the original size or greater? Good luck with that.
It sounded smarter in my head...
yeah, I really shouldn't be allowed to answer questions... :-X
You can use the eraser tool to fix mistakes. That's what an eraser is for!
Too bad. Well, if it can't be done than it can't be done. It wasn't anything vital anyway, but thanks a bunch for teaching me this painful reality.
Nope only happens in TV and movies. Especially the resolution your talking about
[spoiler](https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moronail.net%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fdg_pictures%2F0910%2F2010.jpg&hash=411bf9665d152d9e6d8cc1a219f830ca97f11867)[/spoiler]
If the image is very simple, it's possible to do it by going the vector route (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics), but it's very time consuming.
That's pretty cool.
lol roph's avatar
Would you consider an anime chick lying on her back a "simple" image? I'm uncertain.
well, we can never know unless we try, ammirite?
Just post it up, and I'll see if I can pull anything off... Although, no guarantees.
Read a bit more into rophs link, found a cool example on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_to_vector
Try inkscape, i use it for drawing anyway, its cool
Quote from: Animefan on August 12, 2010, 10:16:23 PM
Would you consider an anime chick lying on her back a "simple" image? I'm uncertain.
Depends on the level of shading, lines, textures, etc..
Vectors will -always- have simpler results than raster images because of the design process.
Basically, if there's hard-cel shading and not tons of textures/small lines, you're likely to get a good result just having illustrator trace it for you, else, it'll either lose quality (if there's soft shading or textures) or just come out muddy (if there's too many lines).
Quote from: ahref on August 13, 2010, 01:46:00 AM
Read a bit more into rophs link, found a cool example on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_to_vector
Try inkscape, i use it for drawing anyway, its cool
I never knew Inkscape had that tool, that quality is quite amazing too. Very cool, wonder if I still got it installed...
Quote from: Jonesy on August 13, 2010, 01:59:05 AM
Quote from: ahref on August 13, 2010, 01:46:00 AM
Read a bit more into rophs link, found a cool example on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_to_vector
Try inkscape, i use it for drawing anyway, its cool
I never knew Inkscape had that tool, that quality is quite amazing too. Very cool, wonder if I still got it installed...
Actually, clicking the image, it's a pretty crappy.
Jagged edges everywhere, messed up from the film grain, it'd be better off if someone manually did it and worked with gradients.
It wouldn't look hyper-realistic, but it'd be cleaner.
Maybe it's just me.
Compared to the others though, yeah, it's pretty HQ.
yeah just actually zoomed in on that,
If its a drawing, which im guessing it is, it should work better.
HMPH! I KNEW IT WAS POSSIBLE!
All you people are such downers (that is, those who posted before Roph)! ; P
Anyways... I'm actually kinda interested in seeing the pic that AF was talkin about.
Chihaya (http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10094833a/20/1) Images (http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10094833a2/20/2)
And here's one that has both at the same time in it, without the damn HobbySearch logo:
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg72.imageshack.us%2Fimg72%2F7863%2Fneogds99502.jpg&hash=e1d9112e096169ebcd641475cf76ba46e6f4b9de)
403 Forbidden
Stop using Imageshack, it's a pile of shit. bb.xieke.com or tinypic.com forever
ooooooh~ Riske~!
Well, I don't see any hurt in giving it a shot... I'll be back in a day or two, unless you want me to wait for the non-hobbysearch one...
Quote from: Sashikinaroji on August 13, 2010, 02:48:36 AM
HMPH! I KNEW IT WAS POSSIBLE!
All you people are such downers (that is, those who posted before Roph)! ; P
Anyways... I'm actually kinda interested in seeing the pic that AF was talkin about.
It's not possible to resize a raster image without losing quality.
Vector files are very different, and even then if you save the vector as a bitmap you'll still run into the problem.
Meh... I was just messin'...
IDk, I just know that there's no point in not trying, and it seems that this is a pretty good image for expansion... not a lot of tiny details...
Seriously, wtf. Now imageshack has lost its stones too? Does any image host out there still have a damn ballsack? I was usin' imageshack cause they don't screw with the pixels or kilobyte count. Photobucket does so I left them alone a long time ago.
Ok, let's try bayimg. Jeez, I didn't know these guys were still around. I'd stick with them except, I've kinda grown accustomed to having my own account on a hosting site.
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.bayimg.com%2Fbaoeaaach.jpg&hash=56b6351ca488da2921e97f5ab4f1599925287d4c)
And http://image.bayimg.com/baoeaaach.jpg in case the [img] thing didn't work for some reason. That used to happen from time to time with bayimg.
I wish I coulda found a bigger variant of this image myself, but there doesn't seem to BE a bigger version available on the internet. I think this is about as good as this image gets.
You could live trace that in illustrator or something, but the gradients on the cheeks and knees and elbows would be dithered.
At that point, you could resize the file to any size you want without losing quality, so long as you keep the .ai file around. To get it into png or gif or jpg or whatever you'd go to file>export.
that would tile nicely horizontally, just do that :P
hrm... Exactly how big did you need this???
NVM... It seems that I forgot the first page.
Pretty damn big. My first post wasn't completely accurate, because that was in relation to this picture being cut in half. For the entire picture, at least 2000 pixels across, 1000 for each half. (I need to split it into two separate sides, both of which need to be 1000 across.)
What are you going to use this for
Just out of base curiosity
Well... y'know... at first I wrote, "The fact that you're the one who's asking is preventing me from saying.", but fuck it. For some reason you already think pretty lowly of me. What's it matter if I crank it down again?
If you go back to the product page (http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10094833) that the hobby site pictures came from, you may notice that this particular dakimakura is "long sold out". For those of you who don't know, this is online store talk for "go home and die". So clearly, I'm not getting my Chihaya dakimakura. But the thing is... Chihaya may very well be my favorite anime character of all time. (I'm not sure yet. Ryomou's still pretty awesome...) so I looked elsewhere. And came upon an individual on ebay who prints these himself. Says he can make any at all if I send him an image of 1000 pixels or more. So I figured, if I could get a decent bigger variant of this image, I could send it to him to make an unlicensed knock-off.
Frighteningly persistent just for a dakimakura, I know. But in my defense, I didn't think there'd actually be a way to do it. I just thought I'd try.
Oh so a ronery pillow. Whatever man it's your bed.
Quote from: Animefan on August 20, 2010, 03:43:51 AM
Frighteningly persistent just for a dakimakura, I know. But in my defense, I didn't think there'd actually be a way to do it. I just thought I'd try.
To be honest, I'm kinda creeped out as for the reason (I just googled a dakimakura, since I knew not the term, and it looks like a sex doll made love to a pillow) but, then again, I still think the pic itself is sexy, so who am I to judge if you want a life-size version of it, yes? It's creepy for both of us, pretty much equally...
anyways... I tried a pic out, and it came pretty close to what I was shooting to do, but it isn't quite up to snuff if you ask me... What do you think?
PS. This is the internet, don't worry what people think of you.
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi163.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft313%2FSashikinaroji%2Fresize.png&hash=896cb5b9592fa082732681dac666bf576065a09c)
It's blurry.
it started off much worse...
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi163.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft313%2FSashikinaroji%2Frezise2.png&hash=8e93d11deff53151d21d3a18c6636a23de79132a)
Making a full fleshed overlayered Vector would work if not be difficult. The higher resolution of image the better it will end up on the ronery pirrow. Tracing the hell out of it and vectoring it would be a long, arduous task but taking a 1000 pixel image is going to look pretty bad stretched out to like, 4 feet.
It looks pretty decent, but I meant 1000 like, the other way. So like, around 1080 x 3250. Yeah, it sounds pretty difficult right? I already have a hug pillow, but I just have a really a sweet spot for Chihaya.
This would actually be pretty easy to just trace in Illustrator.
WHAT IS VEKTOReeNG? No, seriously.
Quote from: mastermoo420 on September 05, 2010, 03:44:05 AM
WHAT IS VEKTOReeNG? No, seriously.
from wikipedia:
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6b%2FBitmap_VS_SVG.svg%2F300px-Bitmap_VS_SVG.svg.png&hash=2cb71d92e2b82469c4329232857ff8b2776ce1b6)
This image illustrates the difference between bitmap and vector images. The bitmap image is composed of a fixed set of dots, while the vector image is composed of a fixed set of shapes. In the picture, scaling the bitmap reveals the dots and scaling the vector image preserves the shapes.
If you want an example, open up a PDF document and zoom in 10x, then open up paint, write a word and zoom in 10x.
Edit: That picture looked better with a white background, right click it and select "view".
Not all PDFs are vector. Vector images are always scalable. Raster, (bitmap,) are not.