Image Quality Downgrades when Scaling Down from the Camera from the Original Project

[TheQuestionMark]

So I'm doing prints 2438 x 3038 (8.13 x 10.13 inches 300 DPI) with the bleed area. And want to scale it down to 96 DPI for web viewing with the bleed area left out 768 x 960 ( 8 x 10 inches 96 DPI). When I use the set the camera tool up to crop the image then export the image through camera view, the image quality drastically reduces I don't know why it does it. But when I export as project instead of camera the image quality comes out as intended 780 x 972 with the bleed area (8.13 x 10.13 96 DPI), I don't want the bleed area.

The Original Document Size is 2438 x 3038

Camera 2400 x 3000 (8" x 10" 300 DPI)

Export to Camera 768 x 960 96 DPI

Here are the settings.



Am I doing anything wrong?

[slowtiger]

(You don't use any DPI setting for web, it's exclusively for print.)

So you have some large images with a border and want to scale them down to small images without border, correct?

Open a project with the large images. Use the crop tool to cut out the image area. Export the new project in the desired dimensions.

I'd recommend to also apply some image sharpening on the smaller images before exporting.

[TheQuestionMark]

(You don't use any DPI setting for web, it's exclusively for print.)

So you have some large images with a border and want to scale them down to small images without border, correct?

Open a project with the large images. Use the crop tool to cut out the image area. Export the new project in the desired dimensions.

I'd recommend to also apply some image sharpening on the smaller images before exporting.

I found using DPI is more simpler. If I just solely use screen size resolution I have to do more complicated calculation and have to guess if it's the correct resolution and size of my textures everytime. With DPI I can just type 96 DPI in Clip Paint to downsize and get the calculation for the size with less fuss and it look as intended, vice versa converting to 300 DPI 1563x 1563 on given set of resolution 500 x 500 96 DPI, like a twitter avatar, for my texture brush strokes for the intended look. It's more simpler, better, more accurate.

I use this site. http://dpi.lv/ It makes working with print and how it look on the web much simpler. I just start set up my texture brushes at 300 DPI and then scale down to the view as intended on the web, so I can get ready and set up to scale down to 4K at 184 DPI when it becomes more mainstream, right it doesn't feel mainstream. My mistake back then was to just start 184 DPI or less, because I don't know about DPI or where to set my brushes with texture that is based on what (DPI? Resolution? Zoom?). When working with alot of texture it seems better start with 300 DPI then go below. But for me, if had more knowledge I would work 600 DPI but I don't know the actual DPI for scans of TVPaint's texture.

I think TVPaint needs a DPI Calculator like Clip Paint it would make work flow much simpler and more informed people on how to use DPI. And TVPaint needs more a 'look as intended' settings feature. Adobe OLM Preview it look as Anti-Alias but work as unalias for coloring and drawing and grab the OLM Features since it's open source https://olm.co.jp/rd/technology/tools/?lang=en for TVPaint themselves. Also look as intended when you export your main drawing view magnification it looks exactly that, and it needs add that to that export option "Export as View Preview at 62%". Or add more things to preview settings such as tweaking sharpness/blurness of the preview and add in "Use Preview Settting as Export". Also TVPaint preview acts weird when goes below 50% zoom it becomes blurry when it over 51% it's a bit sharper they need to fix that.

So to sum it up TVPaint needs.
1. Revamp the 'Preview Settings' - Add in Sharpness/Blurriness Input. And Put in "_____ % Magnification Zoom" in Preview Settings Too, so when you go over 60% you can blur it to make it look as intended or you can sharpen it if the magnification is below 50% to make it look as intended and "?Add in Smart?".
2. In Export - Add in Options such "Use Preview Setting as Export" so you can always get look as intended, without praying, trial and erroring, and spend hours of time-consuming tweaking hoping that it looks what it looks.
3. OLM Smoother Preview - Again it looks anti-alias but it works as unalias.
4. Add a Reset Button for 'Preview Settings'.

Oh by the way do you know the exactly number to apply sharpness? % and the number of times? Or is it always different?

--
I wanted to add more....like color management in 'preview settings' to get ready for HDR. Windows 10 just added HDR in their latest update. Well anyways so you can see how it look in JPG,PNG,WEBP, and Webm. Because I saw one of the interview and anime studio was complaining about color. And I thought I was the only one complaining about color or trying to make it look as intended [youtube]https://youtu.be/dikKmj-55Vw?t=636[/youtube]. Right now it's really a hassle between jpg and png in color I can see the difference in color. I can't see how it looks in JPG without time consumely exporting the image. Can there be more features adding to "Preview Settings" on color as well such "Preview JPG Colors" or something like that?

TVPaint needs more 'look as intended' features.

[slowtiger]

I disagree. TVP's basic unit is the pixel, because we work for film and screen. I find that in whatever zoom I watch, the project view gives me an accurate impression. So no complaints here from my side. I calculate all my assets in absolute pixel dimension because these will be correct in between programs. Film format dimensions are in pixel, and images sizes for web design are in pixels. There is no DPI inside the computer.

Only if I need to work for print I use DPI - but not in TVP but in Photoshop. I have to change from RGB to CMYK anyway, so I use the right tool for that. PS gives me tools to calculate pixel dimensions as well as DPI, so it's easy to convert, and most of the time a good estimate is good enough anyway - one just makes sure not to overdo it (like creating 600 dpi files for a 300 dpi print job). And PS has the sharpening tools I need for print. (I was wrong on that, TVP doesn't provide this because it's not needed.)

Use the right tool for the job, switch pograms where needed, and maybe get a decent book about DTP because your workflow is awfully complicated - you could have a much easier life.

[TheQuestionMark]

I disagree. TVP's basic unit is the pixel, because we work for film and screen. I find that in whatever zoom I watch, the project view gives me an accurate impression. So no complaints here from my side. I calculate all my assets in absolute pixel dimension because these will be correct in between programs. Film format dimensions are in pixel, and images sizes for web design are in pixels. There is no DPI inside the computer.

Only if I need to work for print I use DPI - but not in TVP but in Photoshop. I have to change from RGB to CMYK anyway, so I use the right tool for that. PS gives me tools to calculate pixel dimensions as well as DPI, so it's easy to convert, and most of the time a good estimate is good enough anyway - one just makes sure not to overdo it (like creating 600 dpi files for a 300 dpi print job). And PS has the sharpening tools I need for print. (I was wrong on that, TVP doesn't provide this because it's not needed.)

Use the right tool for the job, switch pograms where needed, and maybe get a decent book about DTP because your workflow is awfully complicated - you could have a much easier life.

All I know is that Devianart Prints supports up 3000 DPI it feels wasted if I stay at 300 DPI and it feels like I should go higher. The LASERLAB section on 3000 DPI, https://www.deviantartsupport.com/en/ar ... -my-prints . I don't think I need to go to photoshop and convert it to CYMK, Deviantart does it for me. Am I wrong to think like that?

Do you use texture for your work? Seems like you don't. If I didn't use texture for my drawing I wouldn't complain either. And right now I'm using alot of texture in my work so there's alot of complaining. I can't get these strokes in Photoshop.



I'm just following this chart. I think I'm more of a Concept Artist, BG Artist, and Illustrator. I bet these people moaning about TVPaint but they're stuck with it, and need to use custom brush to draw, the wet profile, and texture. If you're using Photoshop and TVPaint you're paying twice the budget, I can't afford that. Clip Paint you pay only $15 dollar once and Photoshop you have $9 a month?!? Photoshop is overprice. If you pay for both, you can't afford a Cintiq Pro 32.

My workflow is probably complicated because I'm on budget and want to get a Cintiq 32 Pro. And I think Photoshop CS6 is a bad idea to get because it doesn't support HDR, it's obsolete. I think we disagree on things, but I think TVPaint should cater to Concept Artist, BG Artist, and Illustrator. You can't get these strokes in photoshop only in TVPaint, and hopping back and forward to do strokes TVPaint and then sharpen in photoshop doesn't seem like smooth workflow. There's too much trial and erroring if it's too sharp in photoshop you have to save, and go back TVPaint and do the strokes again, then hop back to photoshop only to screw up again, didn't like the strokes, save, and move back and do the strokes again!? Early Stage in a drawing seems okay but when comes detailing and near the end stage of a drawing, hopping between Photoshop and TVpaint seems frustrating, slow, and not smooth.

And I think TVPaint needs everything I suggested. It needs 'look as intended' features. That's why they should add this to "Preview Settings' to keep you happy to make everything the same. And to keep new artist, concept artist, bg artist, illustrator and me(who's on budget) happy, that the workflow is smoother and every stroke in their artwork they do is intended to what it should look like.

[slowtiger]

I'm sorry, but it's really impossible to feed you all the information of 25 yrs in the job here in a forum post. It's totally possible to get most jobs done on a budget, but there's a line somewhere between getting quality because of specialised software, and murking around with tools not really up to it. Nowadays you can print illustrations and photographs directly from RGB in, oh, about 60% of the jobs and it will be OK, but you will not be able to get high quality print jobs where certain colour values must be met absolutely. With good knowledge you may trick even cheap programs to jump through hoops, but you will still not get the last 25% of quality. And if your knowledge is incomplete, well. If you don't know how to calculate image dimension in px, or when to sharpen images and how much, then you're not up to that job.

TVP is for animation and illustration. It's not for preparing print jobs. Just keep it that way.