Jon Okerstrom
Forum Replies Created
-
Hi ladorn45,
The answer lies in the aspect ratio (height and width) of the can and the image. If they’re the same, you get no distortion. If they’re different, the image will be stretched to fit the can and you get distortion.
you should be able to approximate the right aspect ratio.. if you want to get really precise, you can measure height and circumference.
Does this help?
Jon
-
Serge,
That’s very kind of you to say. We’ve both been at this a long time – it’s hard to stop when Zaxwerks software continues to get better and better and when creating cool stuff is so much fun.
Congratulations on the success of your new DVD!
Jon
-
Serge,
That’s very kind of you to say. We’ve both been at this a long time – it’s hard to stop when Zaxwerks software continues to get better and better and when creating cool stuff is so much fun.
Congratulations on the success of your new DVD!
Jon
-
Hi IU Video,
Why not use a pose action… in your first pose, go to the pose action presets. choose spin y. move the rotation pointer so you get 360 degrees or whatever else you want.
Jon
-
Hi lasvideo,
I suspect your precomp is not at a high enough resolution to give you crisp text close up. Try doubling the size of the precomp as well as the size of the text. So long as the aspect ratio remains the same, it’ll work the same.
By the way – there are two Jons/Johns here… John Dickenson is the one offering tutorials for sale. We have both done free tutorials. I think you meant to thank him… regardless, we’re both happy you’re having success with Zaxwerks products.
Jon
-
Hi lasvideo,
The key to mapping your text to the edge of the star is to realize that the image is being wrapped like a piece or ribbon around the star. To avoid distortion, your image (or in this case, your precomp with the text in it) needs to have the same aspect ratio as the edge to which you’re mapping it. It’s going to be a very short, wide precomp.
Does this help?
Jon
-
Hi BirdRock,
>>You did an excellent job both describing correlation between dpi and ppi and you also helped me breath a little easier regarding being able to count on being able to get high resolution prints generated from ProAnimator. If I could just follow up with another couple of quick questions, it would be very much appreciated.
Thanks and certainly.
>>Question 1 – What is the optimal output choice for the highest quality end result, I’m assuming it would be either Cineon Full, 3656 x 2664 or Film (4K) 4096 x 3112?
It depends on the art. I would do two things: Use the camera to make the logo fill the image you render with very little border. If the logo is not the same aspect ratio as your chosen image size, use the custom option to adjust things. Generally bigger images are better.
>>Question 2 – When you were referring to resizing the image to fit my layout in PhotoShop I’m hoping you to mean the following. Currently I am rendering the graphic from animatorPro as a .tga file using the preset Film (4K) 4096 x 3112 and then opening it in Photoshop, I then open it in PhotoShop and simply drag it over into my existing 600 ppi PDF layered layout. At this point it is way to big for the design layout so I use ctl+T to resize the image using the old shift and drag technique to size the image to fit my layout. So the question is, is that correct procedure for properly resizing an image created in AnimatorPro to achieve the best result when printing using a high resolution 4 color printing press process?
You can do it that way… good thing you’re constraining the scale tool by holding down the shift key. However, doing it this way, you really don’t have a feel for whether your image is detailed enough. Personally, I would do the resizing of the original image based on the size you need in your final project… then place the logo where it belongs. This way you can really know whether you have enough detail in your rendered image.
Question 3 – Should I do any resizing of the 3D image in PhotoShop before I pull it into existing PhotoShop working project?
It’s personal preference, but I would – see answer to question 2.
>>Question 4 – Considering I’m currently scaling the 3D image down instead of up in PhotoShop to fit my design, do I still need to consider using the sharpen tool to address the issue you described regarding the issue of Photoshop interpolating the data creating more pixels?
It depends. It makes sense that you would scale down a 72 ppi image to make it fit in your document… the question is whether you’re scaling it down enough that Photoshop isn’t creating its own interpolated pixels to get to your desired resolution. You would most likely need sharpening if Photoshop is adding pixels. There are lots of theories about the best way to do this. Some people switch to lab color and sharpen only the lightness channel… but your mileage may vary. The other thing to consider is that changing the antialiasing settings can affect the sharpeness of your original image. A bit of edge softness is actually preferred for television – but not so much for print.
I would think your printer could do a proof so you can get a look at things before you commit.
Hope this helps. I should add that almost all of my work is television – I don’t pretend to be an expert on doing this for print… I do hope this basic stuff helps.
Jon
-
Hi BirdRock,
What you’re being told is not true, assuming you use Photoshop to resize your image to the correct resolution and size. However, you do need to understand what’s going on to get the best-possible print output.
Think of it this way: Your normal 720 x 420 pixel image contains 345,600 pixels, whether you print it at 72 pixels per inch and get a 10 inch by 7.5 inch image, or 600 pixels per inch and get a much smaller image.. 1.9 inches by 0.9 inches. It’s still the same amount of information. The larger image will look pixelated on a high end printer because it’s at 72 ppi. The smaller image will look tack sharp because it’s at 600 ppi.
The shrinking process I’ve just demonstrated is why it’s good to render a giant-sized still from Invigorator or ProAnimator when you’re doing something for print. Then, when you scale the resolution and size in Photoshop, you’ll get the detail you want.
One more tip: If the size (in megabytes) of your image remains the same when you change the size and resolution, you’re not adding or losing detail. However, if your file size goes way up when you resize, Photoshop is interpolating the data to create more pixels. The more interpolation you do, the softer your image will look. You may want to sharpen the resuulting image with one of Photoshops sharpening filters to compensate for that and for dot gain, but if you do, wait until the end of the process. It should be the last thing you do.
Maybe Serge will pipe in with some more tips… for now, I hope this helps.
Jon
-
Hi nelsonmay10,
No. ProAnimator is your standalone option… and a very good one at that.
Jon
-
Hi nelsonmay10,
Invigorator Classic is probably what you’re after, though you’ll definitely want Illustrator if your logo is at all complicated. Photoshop can export paths, but it’s really limited so far as doing vector-based artwork.
https://zaxwerks.com/invigorator_classic/index.shtml
Jon