Does this make sense?

[RainbowTigress]

I'm going to have a section for this type stuff once I get my new site up. Put them there! For now, feel free to create an album on the group. I loves me some funny pics!

I think I'll do that tonight.  Check it out later and tell me what you think.

[witch]

I'm still waiting for Pescado to stick me in that newsbox (I'll probably make it someday - it'll be a point of honor.)

Well I only got "How be Motokiness?" No kick, didn't even get called stupid or a round mound of grey fatness. Heh, I must be the only person Pescado ever said anything that could be remotely construed as nice or friendly in the newsbox.

I'm insulted that I wasn't insulted! 

ROFL
Oh, cool! I've gotten "How be Brynneness" a couple of times. I didn't realize it was an honor!  Of course, not trying to make anyone jealous, but I have been stupid. A lot. I am a verrrrrrry stupid person. LOL

Bangelnuts, I don't wish to upset you but I have to say something, this issue is really annoying. I would be very grateful if you restrained yourself from quoting huge blocks of other peoples' text. I get an email that there's a new post on a thread. I think, cool, wonder what it is? I go to the thread and it's you again, quoting huge blocks of text, often with pictures, with just ROFL or LOFL or whatever it is you people add to the bottom.

Then I'm pissed off, I've read it all before, I agree it's funny, I don't need to be told, I don't want to have to scroll all the way past it the quotes before the conversation picks up again.

If you are having trouble managing quotes, or picking out the part you would like to comment on, PM me & I'll try to help.

Just today was a final straw - a huge quote with NOTHING on the bottom.   So disappointing.

[baratron]

Those strange lines or spikes are called "jaggies". They occur when one vertex (corner) of a polygon, for some reason, gets calculated to be in an entirely wrong place. There are many reasons why this may happen, including:

1) Incorrect mesh design, with unnecessary extra polygons buried inside the mesh, which "pop out" when the object is deformed. (When I was playing with Milkshake & Sims 1 meshes, I was horrified by what lurked inside some of them).
2) Meshes that contain far more polygons than the system is capable of rendering. (High-resolution meshes in a low-resolution game or on a low-res display).
3) Temporary bugginess as the meshes of two different objects coincide unexpectedly. (Like a sim using an object while you have move_objects on so they interact with a slightly different part of it than usual).
4) Scaling problems, as a e.g. circular object is zoomed in on or as a static picture is zoomed in past its existing resolution.

Jaggies occurred frequently on the Playstation 1, which had a graphics chip capable of far fewer polygons than Sony admitted to. As a result, there were quite a few games that were almost unplayable as your character approached things like mountains and cliffs; you'd get close to the mountain, where there were a lot of polygons making up the rock face, and suddenly polygons from your character or weapon would morph into the background and you'd get completely confused. Even the PS2 suffers from jaggies, although its are more normally confined to the edges of objects appearing rough rather than entire faces of the polygon getting randomly stretched.

[Sagana]

I'm anal - I admit it up front

That web encyclopedia definition is talking about a print media effect (I live in the print world) - pixilated or what are sometimes called "bitmappy" images. An easy way to see an example is to type some text into photoshop (or paintshop or whatever) in a 1" x 1" square, and save it as a 72 dpi jpg. Reopen the 72 dpi file and increase it to fit on the largest piece of paper you can print and print it. Don't add resolution - just insist it print 11x17 or whatever. The edges of the text will show up all jagged and nasty (look at the letters that are supposed to be round - "a's" and "o's"). Open the paint program again and increase the page size and font size to actually fit the largest paper you can print and this time save it at 300 dpi. Reopen the large file and print again. Assuming you actually ended up with a decent resolution, and your printer can print the font, now the edges of round letters will look right, or at least better.

I deal with the jaggies daily as people don't seem to understand you can't download a picture from the internet and print it for display on a 36" x 54" banner... customers are nuts I'll trade one buggy sim for vector text and another for at least 150 dpi *at full size* art.

[witch]

as people don't seem to understand you can't download a picture from the internet and print it for display on a 36" x 54" banner...

Ooooh I'm so with you there. You know the thumbnails google shows in a google image search? I have seen students copy those into their assignments, then stretch them to full A4 size, and want to know if the copy centre can blow them up to A3. AND THEY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN.

well, maybe that's a slight exaggeration, maybe not always the thumbnails - though it often seems like it - many of the students have not discovered the option that lets them get see large images, but often they'll pick a very small image and just not see the blurryness and pixelation when it's made really big.

[Hairfish]

At the other end of the spectrum are people who send photographs straight from their camera, through email. No resizing... They can't understand my complaints about a 10MB photo that arrives at 8,000 x 6,000 pixels. My display is only 1152 x 864, after all. And I have no intention of examining your cat's eyelashes for mites.

[ElviraGoth]

I heartily agree on the bitmappy images.  I work at a sportswear company and we screenprint on garments.  Customers and sales reps will tell us to get the graphics from the website.  Can't seem to understand that you can't take a 1x1 inch crappy 72 dpi jpeg and make a vector graphic that will work in an 11 inch size.  You can't tell any details on something that small and blurry.

[Oddysey]

Oi. Although I can kind of see how people would think they can blow internet pictures up and have them retain detail, if they're used to working with actual photos, since film picks up details the human eye can't even see without magnification. Computer images operate under the WYSIWYG principle.

But then, why are these people get images of the internet anyway? It's really, really hard to find decent pictures on the web.

[Sagana]

But then, why are these people get images of the internet anyway?

Because they're cheap and don't want to pay a photographer, or even to get decent free source photos. And are too lazy to find out where the logos came from and get the company's provided vector/high res required for use ones.

They're too cheap to pay us too, or to pay anything for the work involved in making their not-so-great art work in large format. Customers are a pain Shame they're kinda the point of a business...

[witch]

Going by he students' attitudes, they think anything on the net is free source. When I tell the florists or the fashion design students they have to reference every picture, they give me looks of pure dumbstruck horror. 

[eaglezero]

At the other end of the spectrum are people who send photographs straight from their camera, through email. No resizing... They can't understand my complaints about a 10MB photo that arrives at 8,000 x 6,000 pixels. My display is only 1152 x 864, after all. And I have no intention of examining your cat's eyelashes for mites.

Besides, most pictures taken with a digital camera tend (in my opinion) to need to be color-corrected and adjusted in various ways before they're suitable for viewing. I always resize and color-correct my pictures before emailing them or putting them on my website or whatever. I guess it's likely that most people don't know how to resize images.

Slightly relevant to the slant this discussion has taken:

One time, my dad tried to make a logo for a tshirt using MS Word. He was trying to work with the tools he had, I guess, but it really, really wasn't working. He was using the "warp text" feature. Oh. My. God. I just about died. I wasn't sure whether to be embarrassed or amused. I had him email the word file to me (he had evidently been emailed one of the images to use IN A WORD FILE) and I was able to make a decent logo in photoshop (and I emailed it back as an image file, not in a word document!). Silly people. E-mailing pictures in word files and such.

[ElviraGoth]

We've gotten images in word files, too.  They can be exported, but they're still lousy.  And we have to work on Macs, so when they send us a PC file in MS Word - well, guess who gets to figure out how to make it usable.

We do most of our stuff with Illustrator.  Now, my boss also seems to think she can use any and every picture image file (jpeg, tiff, eps, etc.) in Illustrator and print it on the color laser printer and it should look great.  She doesn't know how to do anything in Photoshop except erase.  Not even convert from RGB to CMYK.  And she wanted me - ME - not US - to do this year's catalog in Illustrator instead of Quark Express.  All 60 pages.

Not gunna do it - wouldn't be prudent - at this juncture.