This was great - I've had people try to explain this kind of thing to me before, but no one has ever done so in such a simple, clear way. I've been told for years that I should have vector files made, or that I should provide vectors when possible, but now I feel like I actually get why that's important. Such a good video!
Thanks! I'm glad it wasn't too complicated or even raised more questions. If it's something meant to be reproduced several times or on different sizes, vectors will always be the best option. But it doesn't mean bitmap files are all bad. All of the custom boxes I made are in bitmap format but it's ok since they are supposed to be in a fixed size and are quite small. Glad you liked it! Thanks for stopping by.
Your reasoning is flawed. When the original boxes, manuals, pamphlets, posters, etc. originally went to print, regardless of how the original data was stored (vectors or bitmaps), the picture had to be converted to individual points that the printer could graph onto the page, box, etc. The printer has a limited DPI. Think of those blown-up pop art paintings of newspapers comics show the individual ink dots applied to the page. Further, when scanning, if you had a high enough DPI (at least as high as the original printer), you could capture the art as it was printed. Then when printing your reproduction, you would have to print at the same DPI or if printed at a higher DPI, that information would be extrapolated and even so, that new information, would not be visible to the naked eye.
+WhatsOnMyShelf Oddly enough, I removed a bit of audio near the end where I say that if you have a thousand dollar scanner and a thousand dollar printer, you might be able to make it work. But I see your point. I'm talking about reproduction of things printed in higher than the average 300dpi, you would need very high quality (and expensive) equipment to scan and print it properly. Even so, do you think it would work? I tried a couple of times when I worked on a company that had high quality equipment, and the text and straight lines would always give it away. Some worked better than others, but it would never be 100% true to the original. Thanks for the comment man! The more information, the better. If me being wrong or having missed anything, the more information, the better. Thanks for stopping by!
I have never used professional grade scanners or printers nor do I know the original DPI used on older game boxes and manuals. I'm not sure if that number is consistent across the board either. However, I believe it should work in theory. There's only so much information possible that can be stored in the physical form of the art on the box. The original format had to be quantized to an amount that could be printed. Because of the nature of how those older boxes and manuals were printed, the dots of dye may bleed into each other; however, assuming higher DPI in scanners and printers today, even that new information created in the original printing process should be possible.
+WhatsOnMyShelf I get what you mean, a way to scan every single printed dot perfectly and reproduce the color, position and exact shape of each one on the same kind of paper. Who knows, maybe the technology for such precise work is already out there. Even so, there is the problem of how the program interprets the color you chose, then how it gets printed and re-interpreted when scanned and printed again. I wish it would be simple. That way people would stop charging so much for a simple box or manual.
Those people are providing a service. Not everyone cares to find and pay for originals. Additionally not everyone has the time and access to the necessary equipment. I agree about the color representation. I have seen plenty of scans of magazines, box art, manuals, etc. that have glare and shadow. The way the scanner captures the image can affect the color, so there would have to be some additional processing to remove those "artifacts."
This was great - I've had people try to explain this kind of thing to me before, but no one has ever done so in such a simple, clear way. I've been told for years that I should have vector files made, or that I should provide vectors when possible, but now I feel like I actually get why that's important.
Such a good video!
Thanks! I'm glad it wasn't too complicated or even raised more questions.
If it's something meant to be reproduced several times or on different sizes, vectors will always be the best option. But it doesn't mean bitmap files are all bad. All of the custom boxes I made are in bitmap format but it's ok since they are supposed to be in a fixed size and are quite small.
Glad you liked it! Thanks for stopping by.
That was a very brief and concise explanation. Nice work!
This was SO easy to understand. Thanks!
Your teachings and resolution are important here !
this is too high quality to not have any views
+Podge Thanks man! Glad you liked it. Lots of views, a couple of views, as long as people enjoy it, I'm happy.
Thanks for stopping by!
Thanks so much! You are awesome at what you do
Thank you. This video helped me to understand easily.
Wow, fantastic video!
another fantastic video
+dep ped Thanks man! Glad you liked it. I hope it wasn't too boring.
Thx man, i was looking for this💯💯
Hi ( yg ngeliat sabi like lah )
Hi handsome...
hi
Hii
Hi
Hi Handsome 😋...
great video
How many Aquarian... need so much this video to understand the technical side of their art to be able to keep going?
Boring video? Where??
Your reasoning is flawed. When the original boxes, manuals, pamphlets, posters, etc. originally went to print, regardless of how the original data was stored (vectors or bitmaps), the picture had to be converted to individual points that the printer could graph onto the page, box, etc. The printer has a limited DPI. Think of those blown-up pop art paintings of newspapers comics show the individual ink dots applied to the page.
Further, when scanning, if you had a high enough DPI (at least as high as the original printer), you could capture the art as it was printed. Then when printing your reproduction, you would have to print at the same DPI or if printed at a higher DPI, that information would be extrapolated and even so, that new information, would not be visible to the naked eye.
+WhatsOnMyShelf Oddly enough, I removed a bit of audio near the end where I say that if you have a thousand dollar scanner and a thousand dollar printer, you might be able to make it work. But I see your point.
I'm talking about reproduction of things printed in higher than the average 300dpi, you would need very high quality (and expensive) equipment to scan and print it properly.
Even so, do you think it would work? I tried a couple of times when I worked on a company that had high quality equipment, and the text and straight lines would always give it away. Some worked better than others, but it would never be 100% true to the original.
Thanks for the comment man! The more information, the better. If me being wrong or having missed anything, the more information, the better. Thanks for stopping by!
I have never used professional grade scanners or printers nor do I know the original DPI used on older game boxes and manuals. I'm not sure if that number is consistent across the board either. However, I believe it should work in theory.
There's only so much information possible that can be stored in the physical form of the art on the box. The original format had to be quantized to an amount that could be printed.
Because of the nature of how those older boxes and manuals were printed, the dots of dye may bleed into each other; however, assuming higher DPI in scanners and printers today, even that new information created in the original printing process should be possible.
+WhatsOnMyShelf I get what you mean, a way to scan every single printed dot perfectly and reproduce the color, position and exact shape of each one on the same kind of paper. Who knows, maybe the technology for such precise work is already out there. Even so, there is the problem of how the program interprets the color you chose, then how it gets printed and re-interpreted when scanned and printed again.
I wish it would be simple. That way people would stop charging so much for a simple box or manual.
Those people are providing a service. Not everyone cares to find and pay for originals. Additionally not everyone has the time and access to the necessary equipment.
I agree about the color representation. I have seen plenty of scans of magazines, box art, manuals, etc. that have glare and shadow. The way the scanner captures the image can affect the color, so there would have to be some additional processing to remove those "artifacts."