Jump to content

For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread


Recommended Posts

Hey guys. I hope this is the right forum, but anyway, I, or should I say, my girlfriend needs some help. She is working on a silent Manga contest (No dialogue), and the page submission limit is 5 mb. Hers go up to 106 mb. How can she get it down without severely reducing page quality/resolution?

She draws the pictures by hand, and then edits them on the phone with everything else she needs (Like screentones). I haven't seen her full process/finished pictures though, so I can't tell you more than that.

I'm also fairly certain she's limited to working with a phone (Not contest rules, she just doesn't have a laptop available).

Edited by Spaceception
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KG3 said:

Dang!  Is it possible to make a spacesuit out of duct tape?

I really don't see why not.  From the amount of stuff the mythbusters ended up doing with duct tape, I would not be surprised if this was possible.   Durable?  Probably not.  Well Articulated?  Probably Not.   Air tight?  In the short term, yeah, but I wouldn't go out on a space walk with one. 

Just now, Spaceception said:

page submission limit is 5 mb. Hers go up to 106 mb

What's the format?  I'm assuming pics?    I bet some people skilled in the ways of photoshop would be willing to change the format and reduce it appropriately for you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

What's the format?  I'm assuming pics?    I bet some people skilled in the ways of photoshop would be willing to change the format and reduce it appropriately for you. 

 

Yes, they're pictures. And I'm assuming sizes; the drawing zones are 162 x 243.

And she needs to be able to do it herself I think(?), because she had to restart due to some technical issues, and the deadline is approaching.

 

CORRECTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS: She says that she can work from a computer. The entire page is submitted (The one that's 5 mb. And not individual panels), and she's semi-traditional (She draws by paper, scans it, and applies the screentones).

Edited by Spaceception
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only these possibilities: reduce color depth, reduce resolution, choose higher compression.

Color depth for screen view can easily be reduced to 8bit/channel, no alpha. Resolution can be limited to a 2k display format for screen view, compression is done automatically by choosing the format, e.g. JPG (lossy) or PNG (lossless). And only a single layer.

Edit: i knew how to do it in gimp. Until the last update. Which is a post for the complaint thread :-/.

Hope that helps :-)

Edited by Green Baron
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

There are only these possibilities: reduce color depth, reduce resolution, choose higher compression.

Color depth for screen view can easily be reduced to 8bit/channel, no alpha. Resolution can be limited to a 2k display format for screen view, compression is done automatically by choosing the format, e.g. JPG (lossy) or PNG (lossless). And only a single layer.

Edit: i knew how to do it in gimp. Until the last update. Which is a post for the complaint thread :-/.

Hope that helps :-)

Yes, doing this traditional hurts because of the scanning process as its adds lots of color depth. 
And yes 5 MB is idiotic low for animations, one of your main issues would be to work around this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It kind of depends on the style of the drawing. You can definitely reduce size by reducing the color depth, but that might be a problem if there are lots of colors being used. In that case, you could use fill tools to replace the paper with a singe color, as well as completely black lines. I'm not 100% sure, but I think this would decrease the size. 

If by the "drawing zones" you mean the size of the entire page, then you will have to reduce the resolution to 163x243 anyway, and that should significantly reduce the size of the file.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Hey guys. I hope this is the right forum, but anyway, I, or should I say, my girlfriend needs some help. She is working on a silent Manga contest (No dialogue), and the page submission limit is 5 mb. Hers go up to 106 mb. How can she get it down without severely reducing page quality/resolution?

She draws the pictures by hand, and then edits them on the phone with everything else she needs (Like screentones). I haven't seen her full process/finished pictures though, so I can't tell you more than that.

I'm also fairly certain she's limited to working with a phone (Not contest rules, she just doesn't have a laptop available).

You can transfer the pics to computer and, if you don't have Photoshop, you can basically:

1. Right-click the image file and select edit (in paint)

2. Ctrl+a to select entire image

3. There should be a menu for resize on the toolbar

4. Mark "maintain aspect ratio" and use "by percentage" to decrease the image's resolution (entering 50 will decrease it's resolution by 50 percent, and that usually reduces A LOT of file size)

5. Save the file

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ARS said:

You can transfer the pics to computer and, if you don't have Photoshop, you can basically:

1. Right-click the image file and select edit (in paint)

2. Ctrl+a to select entire image

3. There should be a menu for resize on the toolbar

4. Mark "maintain aspect ratio" and use "by percentage" to decrease the image's resolution (entering 50 will decrease it's resolution by 50 percent, and that usually reduces A LOT of file size)

5. Save the file

Also "save as" filetype JPEG

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2018 at 3:53 PM, Spaceception said:

Hey guys. I hope this is the right forum, but anyway, I, or should I say, my girlfriend needs some help. She is working on a silent Manga contest (No dialogue), and the page submission limit is 5 mb. Hers go up to 106 mb. How can she get it down without severely reducing page quality/resolution?

A clever way to reduce file size may be to vectorize the image. Simple vector art is vastly cheaper than raster art, at least at appreciable resolutions.

As to the method: I don't know. I am, however, no less than 35% sure there are automated tools to take rasterized line art and approximate it with vectors. Alternatively, she could load a scan and trace it in a vector art program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

As to the method: I don't know. I am, however, no less than 35% sure there are automated tools to take rasterized line art and approximate it with vectors.

None of them are particularly good, and nearly all of the half-decent ones include deep learning. Rasterized image invariably has quantization noise, which makes it impossible to recover the original strokes even if they are simple splines. Never mind something like a simulated (or real!) brush stroke. The algorithm has to basically make assumptions about what's the "important" information in the image, and what can be sacrificed to produce vectorization. There are DL NNs out there trained specifically to do that, but usually for a very specific category of art styles. If you throw something a bit more free-form at them, results tend to be terrible.

Unless the artist produces vectorized art from the get-go, and saves/exports it as such every step along the way, trying to compress the image via vectorization is not a worthwhile thing to even try.

Other kinds of compression are worth discussing, @Spaceception. In the modern world, it really comes down to two options. JPEG or PNG.

JPEG is lossy - meaning some loss of quality can and likely will happen. It will compress images with a lot of gradients very well, but there will be some loss of quality around sharp edges. There are quality settings that will significantly impact compression and quality. But generally, even at highest settings, compression is pretty good. The visible loss of quality will depend on the type of image.

PNG is lossless. It will compress images with a lot of repeating patterns or uniform colors way better than JPEG could, and it is entirely lossless, so the compressed image will look exactly the same as original. PNG comes with compression settings, but they will not make a stellar difference. You should always go with highest setting on these, however, as there is no real downside (for modern machines) either.

For traditional art scanned in, it's very hard to say which compression format is going to work out better in terms of size vs quality. But there is no harm in trying both, playing with image size and quality settings, and seeing what you can get out of 5MB worth.

 

Personally, I like IrfanView for image cropping, resizing, and compression. Especially, since it has batch settings letting you process dozens of images in a go. It's free, but it has a touch of a learning curve. If you only have a few images, though, and you're strictly downsizing the image, you can probably get away with MS Paint, though, as people have recommended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What terrible things would transpire if, contrary to all logic, gravity and illumination and related effects were to follow an inverse cube law? Could stable orbits exist under such conditions? How would the masses of e.g. stars need to change to maintain approximately the same macroscopic properties, especially stellar luminosity/temperature and planetary surface gravity? Would all of chemistry become nonsensical, or would things just have stronger or weaker bonds?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 0111narwhalz said:

What terrible things would transpire if, contrary to all logic, gravity and illumination and related effects were to follow an inverse cube law? Could stable orbits exist under such conditions? How would the masses of e.g. stars need to change to maintain approximately the same macroscopic properties, especially stellar luminosity/temperature and planetary surface gravity? Would all of chemistry become nonsensical, or would things just have stronger or weaker bonds?

That is a pretty big spanner to throw into the universe, think you might need a supercomputer to start drawing conclusions. I dont think things would become "nonsensical" but, for example, the universe might not form (as in elements, clouds, stars, galaxies) or it might collapse or possibly almost anything in between.

Does that narrow it down enough ;)

 

Although a thought just entered my head that repulsion would be weakened by the same amount as attraction, so there is a chance that chemistry may be unaffected, which means you still get elements and chemicals. Its anyone's guess what happens to fusion or the aggregation of matter via gravity, with gravity cut down to inverse-cube the big bang might just fling everything into the void to be lost forever.

But what effects it would have on the Big Bang itself? That definitely sounds like supercomputer stuff.

And what if the BB doesnt happen? What if the conditions needs for a BB never occur? What is there instead? Some other form of universe?

 

Its kind alike asking "See this windows PC? What would happen if we replaced every binary "1" digit with a "3" ? "

Nope, binary doesnt work with 3's, and gravity/EM/etc. dont tail off with an inverse cube, you'd be breaking the system. But something would happen to the computer, it would still exist, it just wouldnt work anywhere near the same, it may only be capable of producing randomised static garbage or may not be able to turn on, but it'd still be there.

And the universe might behave the same way if futzed with in a similar manner.

 

Or it might be like replacing every binary digit "1" with a "100" meaning nothing changes, who knows!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

gravity and illumination and related effects were to follow an inverse cube law?

Well, my off the cuff reaction would be that we'd free to death rather quickly.    Maybe not quickly since radiative energy losses would be reduced, but they would still be there.  The sun's energy wouldn't be nearly as strong here.  Venus might eventually become habitable. 

The visible universe would be vastly smaller.

But as mentioned, without fleshing out all the math, I'm just guessing. 

We'd need lighthouse lights for head lights on our cars to make them driveable I'd guess too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...