Johnnykat
-
Posts
551 -
Joined
-
I like my Wacom Intuos 4 and I don't use the Wacom mouse.
-
Just a side note, in regards to what I said before about PvPEC reps should not be captains too - that's exactly what I meant. I didn't say that they shouldn't play. It simply looks like a conflict of interest when you are a rep AND a captain. Yes it is an opinion, but it's also simple common sense if you want to avoid the drama that apparently some of the reps are becoming upset or stressed out about.
-
I agree with Avid on this: "What are you telling all those undrafted people that were interested? "Sorry you weren't drafted. We choose a late sign-up over you and no one else wants you." That's really promoting PvP right there. Way to prove to the community how exclusive we are."
PvP is finally getting some old players back as well as some new players and this last round of drafts just makes the reps look bad in terms of promoting PvP with their exclusivity. And, if you have issues with supposed "sneaking people in" ...grow up, this is a game and any time you have someone able to create/pass rules (in this case a rep) also being allowed to run (captain) a team - then of course there is going to be problems, drama, etc. Life's a b****, wear a helmet.
On a side note, for all those that wanted to play and didn't get in, I can empathize with you. I hope you will all push hard on all the PvPEC reps to be more considerate and get you in the next time around. Good luck! -
My Votes:
1) U-Naught
2) Johnnykat
3) Bubbawheat
*PLEASE NOTE: Battlewraith backing out more or less threw off how I intended to vote (you bastige BW). With that said, I put all the names of peoples art I liked into a coffee cup (since there are always like 2 or 3 of those sitting near me at all times lols). And the above is what was drawn. YES, of course my name was in the cup - I don't subscribe to the "I wouldn't want to be that guy" attitude. I mean seriously, one this is supposed to be for fun, two I like what I did (shame on me), and three if our world leaders can and do vote for themselves then I guess I can too and shouldn't feel awkward about it.
Now, as for other pieces I liked and that were also in the cup (and not in any order): BW, Clutch, Juggertha, Eddy, LD, Frost, Happy Dan and Shia.
**PLEASE PLEASE NOTE: It's hard to read wet coffee covered pieces of paper.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Pyro_Nympho
Well...in other news...all you dang artist have inspired me to purchase a tablet. On my break today...I got the Wacom- Intuos4 Medium USB Tablet with Pen and Mouse...so I'm gonna have some questions.
Thanks gang...can't wait to get it home and set up!
WOOT!...Wacom FTW! Congrats.
-
Quote:How many pixels are in a bajillion?Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
If you're not working in at least a bajillion pixels, you're not fit to be in my crew.
-
Thanks LD. I would quote here, but man it would bury my response.
Anyways, yes CRT (which are non-widescreen/flat LCD monitors) is where this standard came from. That was why your initial math was slightly off. CRTs have two things that make measuring and applying the type of math you used somewhat difficult - the natural curvature of the tube and pixel pitch. CRT's have a curvature to the screen which your math does not include and they also have a pixel pitch (actual size of the pixel on your screen) which is typically measured in millimeters (so you can see here, conversions from a metric unit to our American inch standard adds potential for variation in numbers).
In addition to the above, there is also pixel ratios to consider - CRTs used typically a 5:4 (or 4:3) whereas most current LCDs use 16:9.
Now, sure in the last 5+ years the shift from CRT to LCD technology has been HUGE and CRTs are practically obsolete, even though they provided greater color range (including color calibration), adjustment in screen size ratio without image quality loss, etc. However, the terminology of 72 dpi and 96 dpi (yes, it has gone up - my LCD screen will display up to 120 dpi) is still used. With aspect ratios as they are now, I wouldn't be surprised if 75 ppi is more visually accurate. But typically monitors (in their monitor resolution setting windows) will only give you the industry established values of 72, 96, 120 etc.
Could I of said increase your existing pixels from "1890 wide by 2403 tall" to something double that - sure, I could of. But based on my experiences in both real life work experiences and the classroom, understanding how pixel dimensions and physical space dimensions are related (which your mathematical examples did prove) is fundamentally important as well as establishes good habits for developing digital artists.
And to U-Naught, I feel as if this somehow got taken off topic unintentionally - I apologize for that. I knew you you were becoming more active in dA and that even dA can be misleading as they have you post images using pixel dimensions, yet they promote selling the work as "prints" using standard inch unit measurements. So, again it's just a good habit to get into in regards to how pixel (PPI/DPI) relate to physical space.
On a side note, thanks VexXxa (I also have an associates too
)
-
Quote:Wow is right. Ya, I'm glad I wasn't the only one that thought this was a contradiction.Originally Posted by Suichiro
I think this is the real issue.
LD's pic was a full scene, which according to that logic, should have been out of the running. Opinion is opinion, but that's flawed logic. -
Quote:Hey Thanks! - I looked over this like 2 or 3 times too and missed it.Originally Posted by Aggelakis
Says the FArt Mistress.
-
Quote:I didn't create these standards LD. I mean, it is cool you felt the need to apply math to my numbers to somehow discredit me, but the 72 dpi or 96 dpi terminology were "standards" given by the industry and have been for roughly the last 20+ years since graphic artist/digital artist have been using graphic/digital software. I am sure they are not exactly perfect, but like anything else, these are good standard guidelines to follow - especially if you do not have a solid math backgound.Originally Posted by Lousy_Day
This made me curious to find out if such standard really existed so that the physical size of a pixel on monitors today were exactly 1/72 inch or 1/96 inch. I know different sized monitors can have the same native resolution and identical size monitors can have different native resolution. I wanted to find out if the numbers divided nicely into either 72 or 96 "on-screen" dpi.
I started out with my own monitor, 24 inch diagonal with 1920x1200 native resolution. Using the pythagorean rule ( (SQRT (horizontal^2 + vertical^2) ) / diagona size ), I calculated that my monitor had a native on-screen dpi of 94.3398. I confirmed that number by creating a 4 x 6 document in Photoshop with 94.3398 dpi and physically measuring the 100% size with a ruler. It was pretty much on the mark. With 4 x 6 at 72 dpi, the physical size was about 3 x 4 1/2. Since 94.3398 was kinda close to 96, I thought my monitor could be really at 96 dpi. When I tested with 96 dpi, the measured size was about 1/16 inch larger than 4 x 6, confirming that the dpi I calculated was the correct figure.
I then went on to find out the native on-screen dpi of various monitors on the market today. I will share the numbers for your enjoyment.
Native resolution: 1280 pixels x 1024 pixels
Diagonal screen size: 17 inches On-screen dpi = 96.4235
19 inches dpi = 86.2737
Resolution: 1440 x 900
17 inches dpi = 99.8892
19 inches dpi = 89.3745
Resolution: 1600 x 900
20 inches dpi = 91.7878
Resolution: 1920 x 1200
24 inches dpi = 94.3398
25.5 inches dpi = 88.7904
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
21.5 inches dpi = 102.4608
23 inches dpi = 95.7785
24 inches dpi = 91.7878
25 inches dpi = 88.1163
27 inches dpi = 81.5891
My test disproves the statement that the standard on-screen dpi for monitors (at least the ones on the market today) are either 72 or 96. In fact, I only got the same number just once: 1600 x 900 with 19 inch diagonal and 1920 x 1080 with 24 inch diagonal both have on-screen dpi of 91.7878. I keep saying "on-screen dpi" to make a point that bringing dpi into discussion is irrelevant when the OP was only talking about the number of pixels he works with, without any regard to how those pixels will arrange themselves when printed.
If you work in 1920 x 1200 resolution, what diagonal size would give you the "real" size at 72 dpi? 31.4466 inches. For 96 dpi, 23.5849 inches.
For 1920 x 1080, you need a 30.5959 inch diagonal to work in real size at 72 dpi, and 22.9469 inches for 96 dpi. It looks feasible that 23 inch 1920x1080 monitors might actually be 22.9469 inches set at 96 dpi, but my monitor is definitely 24 inches and not 23.5849.
So the moral of my post? I HATE MATH!!!! If you want to be helpful and answer the OP, all you need to do is simply state the number of pixels you usually work with, such as 3000 x 4000, 4200 x 5100, etc. There is no need to be talking about dpi here.
[edit: the analogy was rewritten to clarify the relationship between pixels, dpi, and printed paper size]
Let's pretend for a moment that U-Naught was a spoiled son of a billionaire. He works 2 hours a week now, and with way too much free time on his hand, he is wondering maybe he should work 4 hours a week. Now, he couldn't care less how much he was paid per hour or the size of his paycheck at the end of the week. He is curious how many hours a week normal folks work, and asks them, "how many hours do you work in a week?" The most logical and simplest answer you'd expect would be, "I work xx hours a week." Someone comes along and says, "I get paid $25/hour." Does that answer his question? No. Someone else chimes in, "I also get paid $25/hour, and I make $1000 a week." That doesn't answer the question directly, but you can do the math and figure out that he works 40 hours a week.
The number of pixels is like the number of hours you work in a week, dpi is the hourly rate, and printed paper size is the weekly paycheck. If he is concerned only with the number of hours he works in a week(number of pixels in his digital image), then discussing the hourly rate(dpi) is meaningless unless he is also concerened with the size of his paycheck(printed paper size). Telling him to get paid more $/hour does result in a bigger check, but that does not change the number of hours he works.
[/edit]
What if U-Naught already had his dpi set to 600 but usually worked in 1714 x 1380 pixels? If he felt cramped would he have to go up to 1200 dpi or is there nothing he can do since his dpi is already as high as any professional artist? No, all he needs to do is increase the number of pixels.
I apologize if I am making such a big deal out of this. I just wanted to be clear about this since some of the responses sounded like they were treating dpi and img size in pixels as if they were totally dependent on each other. They are independent variables since you can change one without affecting the other. Which image has more pixels, 640 x 480 at 600 dpi, or 4000 x 3000 at 72 dpi? If 1714 x 1380 isn't big enough for U-Naught, what he needs is more pixels and not higher dpi.
I will shut up now and go read Alice in Wonderland.
This statement really caught my attention: "I just wanted to be clear about this since some of the responses sounded like they were treating dpi and img size in pixels as if they were totally dependent on each other. They are independent variables since you can change one without affecting the other." EEK! This is the exact kind of thing that will get a lot of people in trouble - at least in Photoshop. You SHOULD treat them DEPENDENTLY and NOT INDEPENDENTLY. In Photoshop, you can create an image at a lower resolution and end up wanting it physically bigger - you need to make sure you are not just altering physical size and forcing in extra pixels/inch which will cause your image to distort/grainy/fuzzy/pixelated/whatever you want to call it.
And in regards to the OP, understanding PPI/DPI and how it affects total pixel sizes if VERY important. I know in my experiences, sometimes I asked a question that had more to it then what I originally thought I was asking about - in my opinion, PPI/DPI and wanting to know what "size" I should be working at is one of those questions. I have seen it happen more then once in art school this very question when not fully explained how pixel and physical space (inches) are related ended up ruining peoples work.
Anways, good luck on your developing artwork U-Naught.
On a side note, I apologize if my original reply offended you in someway LD. Battlewraith summed it up probably the best. I may have to revisit this thread again, but for now I need to get back to work.
-
Dang Battlewraith! - sorry to see you backout.
Out of curiousity, when does this month's voting end? -
Generally speaking, most artists should work at 300 dpi. That may be archaic sounding to some, but in the print industry most "print quality" images are at least 300 dpi. For line art, some may scan in at 600, but then cut it down to 300 once they clean the line art up and then color at 300 (that's mostly because working the whole image at 600 would become extremely taxing on most peoples CPUs once you add in multiple channels, layers, etc (Photoshop does anyways). It is ALWAYS safe to scale down from a high resolution pixel image, but scaling up introduces a loss in pixel quality. So in regards to LD suggesting you can scale up, your image will become noticeably more pixelated if you try to "add" more resolution. That's assuming I understood what LD meant by adding. It would be OK to add "physical" space, for example if you were working in a 4"x6" space, but realized you wanted to go 5"x7" - just make sure you don't try to add in a higher ppi/dpi to the physical space.
If you know your digital image will never be printed for any reason, standard screen resolution is 72 dpi or 96 dpi per inch. So you could work in "real" monitor size space and go 72 dpi and make your file that 4" x 6" and your image on your screen (if is 72pdi resolution) will appear at 4" x 6" on your screen at 100% zoom.
If you go the 300 dpi route. When you are all done, save that as your high resolution file and then convert one down to 72 dpi for screen/display purposes and save it as your low resolution one. Most collector's will want one of each.
I hope that made sense.
-
Quote:Ya, something like that would make sense. Because multiple account voting seems like opening a big can o' worms imo.Originally Posted by VexXxa
May have to change the rules to "One vote per household" in order to nip the insanity in the butt. Otherwise, counting the votes will take up a lot of time since most of us have two, three or more accounts.
-
Quote:Great question!Originally Posted by Implicit Bookcarrier
..err.. if ALL the votes are centered around the same 5 or 6 artists...
how do you find out which of the OTHER artists are gonna be eliminated???? -
Quote:It's no secret a lot of us all have alt accounts. My question is, does she play the game too? I mean, I have a GF and family that like art...they could use all my alt accounts to vote, but is that really fair and is it consistent to what this contest was intended for?Originally Posted by Scootertwo
1. Clutch
2. ScooterTwo
3. Happy Dan
It's no secret I have two accounts, however, my Fiance` has taken an interest in this and wants to vote.
the votes from Scooter Two are my fiance` and no way influenced by me. -
These have such great character and expression - nicely rendered too!
-
Yup - I display my sci/fi and fantasy pieces that I have done or prints of others like Boris Vallejo, Brom and Frank Frazetta. I've done a few Frank Frazetta copies myself and this is one of them (24" x 36" oil - not the best photo):
-
Thanks Vex!
-
Ugh, dang I missed this...pushin' snow around blows!
-
Just curious if there is a Vent server the 606's is using. The first few nights alot of us seemed to be on Skype when this all came about, but it seems I been hearing about a Vent group too lately - is that something that can be posted here? Thanks!
-
Just curious if there is a Vent server the 606's is using. The first few nights alot of us seemed to be on Skype when this all came about, but it seems I been hearing about a Vent group too lately - is that something that can be posted here? Thanks!
-
Very Cool! - Congrats!!!
-
Keeerap...I so missed Thursday. My slacker binge got the best of me after posting my FArt on Wednesday - D'Oh! Sorry BW!
-
Just wanted to say nice job to all the entrants - some really nice pieces! Good luck!
-
Woot - FRIDAY!!!
We got snow AGAIN lastnight...so this seemed appropriate (snow angels link):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kjhRj4LCQY