Anyone willing to lend it to me brush measuring 128 x128 . I 'm trying to create a mosaic with the brush .
The reason are...
1. I do not find in SA , the sample -sized brush . Always smaller than 128x128 .
2. Whenever I make that size and load to preset editor , the result is always blank . Box only appears when the action button on the run .
3. It is all about precision placement of the box in the box when creating a mosaic manually . I will attach the image below
when I make a picture with a brush size 64 x 64 , all went well . But when I made with a larger brush ; 256 x 256 problem that arises is there a space between the boxes holding the box to fill it. The example in the figure below
with brush 256 x256 beginning I made arrangements at Brush modulation : Size # 1 , Min and Max Size Range 0 to 128. ( Other settings such as Start Path and Path Application in accordance with the reference that I found on the forum) . All good. But when I make a change to the max value to 64 , began to appear a space on the right and bottom of the box when I put 64 in the box 128. Likewise, changes occur in the smaller value . The smaller the value , the greater the spacing that appears .
Did anyone ever try to brush measuring 128 x 128 ? How is the solution to brush larger than 128 x 128 ?
If you want to attach your paint preset, i can take a look at it. Hard to comment on how you might or might not have programmed it otherwise.
If you do ever run into situations where there are cracks or incomplete coverage, there are several ip op effects that are called 'interpolators' that can be used to intelligently extend out existing content into the flat colored background (i guess black in your case). Look at the Geodesic Interpolation ip op effect for example. It is discussed in this context at the end of this tip post.
Please review the paint preset I attach.
This is not cracks we know before (there's gap between tile), but tile box that fill the parent box. You can try this preset with brush 256 x 256 and see what happen everytime you change the max value.
Start with 128 then run action. So the brush will fill the canvas. After that, change the value to 64, the you click inside the box. You'll see there's a thin line on the right and bottom.
Anyway thanks John for the tip post. That matter is also article that i'm looking for..:)
When you say Max value, are referring to Max Size Range in the Brush Modulation control panel? I hope you are aware that that control is a % adjustment of the actual size of the brush in the Brush Source control panel. So to get 128, you'd set it to 50%, and to get 64, you'd set it to 25%, assuming you have a 256x256 movie brush.
Your preset also is using Point Sample for the Size Interpolation. Which has it's uses, but is a crappy looking resizing algorithm since it is 0-order interpolation, which means it just drops pixels as opposed to generating some kind of anti-aliased reduction in appearance. Use Interpolation if you want smoother results.
The other thing i just noticed, is that you have the Nib Masking parameter in the Paint Fill Apply control panel set to Local Image Range. So that is going to introduce local image range masking into the paint fill based on the characteristics of your source image. You probably don't want that happening, and should set it to Normal.
Here's my guess at what your problem might be. In the Brush Type control panel, you are using the Source Brush option for the Brush Type. So, any pixels in the source brush that are set to 255 act as a mask for the brush. If they happen to be at the edge of the movie frame, then you would see a space.
Try switching Brush Type to Source Alpha Brush. If your movie does not have an alpha channel, then it defaults to full on for all of the pixels in the movie frame. In testing your paint preset with a 256x256 movie file here, i did not see any 'edge space' artifacts when painting by hand. But i did see some dropout associated with pure white (255) pixels in my source movie file. Making the change i mention above gets rid of that.
I use movie brushes larger than 128x128 all the time (as do many other people), and have never had any issues with them. You do need to be aware that the Max Size Range control in the Brush Modulation control panel uses integer values (as do all paint synthesizer editable parameters). So as you try to reduce the size of a movie brush by 50% progressively, you will eventually run into integer math limitations if you are trying to do a progressively smaller nested grid (100 - 50 - 25 -X). Switching in a different sized movie brush at that X point (same contents, appropriately adjusted smaller frame size) is the way around that.
What canvas frame size are you working with? Just so i can verify there isn't some weird spacing bug associated with that. But so far, i don't see any spacing issues (other than the 255 = mask condition associated with a source brush and how the paint synthesizer's paint fill setup-apply control panels use that as an internal mask). And switching to Alpha Source Brush should fix that for you.
Thanks John for the explanation. I 've changed the type of Source Brush brush into Alpha Source Brush..and the results is... I still find spaces left. Is it because we us different Operating System ?
In determining the value of max range I use a brush , because I think it is easier to determine the size smaller than its previous size ; 128-64-32-16-8-4 ( in some cases , the size of 16 , the image detail is already visible ) . And so far for brush size 64x64 (josh groban pic above), everything running well.
On appeal using the percentage size ; 100 % , 50 % , 25 % , X. Because if you use half of the size of the brush before, should have value in use is 12.5 % , and this can not be done .
"What canvas frame" you mean the canvas size ? Here the current size...
and then i resize to..
I'll remember to use Interpolation to get better result.
By the way, I've read : http://synthetik.com/photo-mosaic-path-start-regionize-arrangement-... and follow the instruction to set path start to get result like this...
but i can made it, did I miss something ?
I just ran a few tests with your paint preset on win 7 using a 256x256 quicktime movie brush, and reducing the size of the movie brush to 64 pixels (which would be a 25% setting for the Max Size in the Brush Modulation control panel) works fine for me. I also used the canvas size you posted in your last reply (2000 x 1412). I don't see any spaces. It works exactly the same for me on windows as it does on my macs. No mysterious spaces between the tiles.
I turned off the Nib Masking, and changed the Brush Type to Alpha Source brush, as i discussed previously.
My movie brush does not have an embedded alpha channel, so it defaults to alpha on for the entire movie frame when i use the Alpha Source Brush option for Brush Type.
Maybe you should post the movie file you are working with so i can test that directly. Or email it to me if you don't want to post it publicly.
What version of windows Quicktime are you using? Although to be honest, i don't see that as having any effect on how the movie brush is working, unless it's super old maybe?
What quicktime compression codec are you using? I used apple photo jpeg in the movie i used for my test of your paint preset.
My brush is almost 50 mb, i'll send it later. But I think you better see this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03hr8vfKzNk&feature=youtu.be. You'll see the process..step by step.
About codec, where I can get that information ?
I use Quicktime Pro 7
I watched your youtube movie, and you are not understanding the Max Size Range control in the Brush Modulation control panel. All of your problems are coming from this misunderstanding. It specified a % size adjustment based off of the actual movie size in the Brush Source control panel. Not a specific pixel size.
So, setting it to 128 is not specifying a brush size of 128 pixels. It's specifying a 128% size adjustment to 256. So you are interpolating the brush size to be bigger than your original movie size.
If you want the brush size to be 128 pixels when you are using a 256 pixel sized original movie brush, then you need to set Max Size Range to 50%. And if you want the brush size to be 64 pixels, then you need to set it to 25%.
As i mentioned before, the adjustable parameters for the paint synthesizer are integer numbers, not floating point. So you need to be careful when doing something like nested tiling, because the percent size reductions need to map out perfectly to the proper smaller nested size. What you are seeing is due to the integer numbers 128% and 64% being used to create brush sizes that don't nest. that's why i said that for a given original movie brush size, you can use 100%, 50%, and 25% for nesting, and then you need to switch to a smaller loaded movie brush, because you can't enter 12.5% as a parameter.
Also, in general it's not a good idea to set the Max Size Range greater than 100%. I mean you can, but you're messing with the quality of image in the movie brush. Better to use a larger size if you need it, rather than interpolating the movie brush beyond it's original size. And again, using Point Sample for the Size Interpolation uses the worst algorithm (0-order interpolation) for the brush size adjustment. Setting it to Interpolation will use a much better algorithm for both increasing the size and for reducing the size.
Okay, no I know how to set max range.
But If i want to set it smaller than 25%...how should i write it?
If I use 256x256, i use 100%, so 50% mean 128x128 and 25% mean 64x64....how about 32x32, 16x16, 8x8 ?
If I have to stop on 25% (64x64), sometimes I still don't get the detail of the mosaic.
Or should I use picture size more than 3500 px x.... ?
The point is that because the brush cache is based on integer brush sizes, and because you are only able to enter Brush Modulation Min-Max settings using an integer % value, you need to be careful about round issues when the percent size modulation is converted into what will ultimately be an integer brush size for the current modulated brush nib. Normally it's not a big deal, but if you are doing something like sub-nested tiling, then each sub nesting needs to be exactly half of the size of what it's nesting into. Otherwise, it's not going to line up exactly.
Now you used 128 and 64 as your Max Size settings. So, 128% of 256 is 327.68. But it's not going to be tiled using that floating point brush size. It's going to be converted into an integer brush size. Similarly, 64% of 256 is 163.84. It will also be converted into an integer brush size. Now, if these floating point values got rounded to 327 pixels and 163 pixels, they will not be able to sub nest when tiled.
As i explained before, and as detailed in this old post, when sub nesting, you can use 100%, 50%, and 25% and get correctly spaced sub-nested tiling. Assuming that your original 100% brush size can be multiplied by .5 and .25 and have integer values (ie: 100% and 50% at least are even numbers). So with a 256 pixel brush size, you can get 128 pixels and 64 pixels with the 50% and 25% size modulations. For smaller that 25% if you want a perfectly spaced sub-nested tiling, make a copy of your original 256 movie brush sized to 32 pixels. Load that appropriately reduced size copy of your original movie file as a new movie brush. You can now use that for 32 pixel, 16 pixel and 8 pixel brush sizes at 100%, 50%, and 25% brush size modulation.