Exporting Issue,Image tend to be less sharper than they look

[TheQuestionMark]

So I've been exporting single image jpg files on TVPaint. I've been working on 63% Magnification it looks really sharp to my liking, I used the 'F' on the Navigation Panel. But when I export the image, the it's significantly more blurer, that the image to me looks like a very bad quality image. How do I fix that? I tried to export to JPG '100 Quality', even PNG - 'Compression 1' 32-bit.

Strangely, when I screen capture my image, paste it on photoshop and export it jpg/png and the image retain it's sharpness.

Please TVPaint, I beg you, can you fix the so the quality of image exporter so it can match on how it looks as it exports. I'm stuck on TVPaint 10.5.7. I wish for TVPaint 11. Is there anyway to fix it for mainly TVPaint 10.5.7 and then TVPaint 11?

[Fabrice]

Hi there, we need screenshots.

[slowtiger]

Any image comparison should only be done 1:1, so you need to look at the 100% view in TVP.

[ZigOtto]

Any image comparison should only be done 1:1, so you need to look at the 100% view in TVP.

+1
to compare the "real thing", you must display at 100% both the source and the output (image of the tvpp project / exported image), to avoid any artifact or loss resulting of the display with subpixels rendering, common issue when zooming in/out the view, specially with reduction/magnification at "not-rounded" vavues (38%, 66%, 125%, ...).

[TheQuestionMark]

Any image comparison should only be done 1:1, so you need to look at the 100% view in TVP.

+1
to compare the "real thing", you must display at 100% both the source and the output (image of the tvpp project / exported image), to avoid any artifact or loss resulting of the display with subpixels rendering, common issue when zooming in/out the view, specially with reduction/magnification at "not-rounded" vavues (38%, 66%, 125%, ...).

But it doesn't make sense. How come photoshop is able to retain the higher image quality that I like. Also how do you work on a bigger image that is bigger than my monitor resolution? 2560 x 1440 Image out of a 1920 x 1080 Monitor?

Hi there, we need screenshots.

Working image is 512 x 512

Image out to 320 x 320

Export straight from TVPaint
http://i.imgur.com/Bv5fEz0.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Screen Capture from TVPaint '63% Magnfication' onto Photoshop
http://i.imgur.com/inp1c5X.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can see the small square on the right of the 'screencapture' is more sharper. To me that really significant if you were to draw even more detail drawing. Can you see it?

[slowtiger]

It seems you need to know a bit more about the fundamentals of image editing on computers.

Of course you can create much larger images than your monitor can show at once. If you watch them 1:1 = 100% you'll see each pixel. If you want to see the whole image, the software must scale it down. Photoshop as well as TVPaint scale images for preview, however, what you see in a scaled-down preview image is NOT the real rendered image quality.

To display an image at 50% software shows only every other pixel. To display an image at 25% only every 4th pixel is shown. To display an image at any odd size like 63% the software uses tricks to show a best result, but this is always inferior to the real image.

If your project is 512 x 512 pixels, then your output should be 512 x 512 pixels as well, otherwise you can't compare the preview with the rendered image.

[TheQuestionMark]

It seems you need to know a bit more about the fundamentals of image editing on computers.

Of course you can create much larger images than your monitor can show at once. If you watch them 1:1 = 100% you'll see each pixel. If you want to see the whole image, the software must scale it down. Photoshop as well as TVPaint scale images for preview, however, what you see in a scaled-down preview image is NOT the real rendered image quality.

To display an image at 50% software shows only every other pixel. To display an image at 25% only every 4th pixel is shown. To display an image at any odd size like 63% the software uses tricks to show a best result, but this is always inferior to the real image.

If your project is 512 x 512 pixels, then your output should be 512 x 512 pixels as well, otherwise you can't compare the preview with the rendered image.

I'm focusing on doing Still Image Illustration.

So I"m confuse. How would I do avatar images for multiple websites then. Avatar window requisite varies signficantly from 640 x 640 to 101 x 101 for each and every different website. What do you do now?

Also What if you want to do a magazine print 11 x 14 inches ( 3300 x 4200) and then also upload to your own the website gallery too?

?????How would I get the best preview that's is 1:1? On Image Zooms, there's no I can get 100% Zoom due to varied criteria from image size right?????

Should you I just rely on TVpaints Default Zooms is. There's no 66.67%
33.33%
50%
75%

66.67%? It's not on default TVpaint Zooms, use 75% or 50% instead?

---
Another separate talk.
I tend to do alot image manipulation. I always thought working on a bigger image than the final result is always better. Because it removes the bad artifacts and what's blur when working on 1:1, when working a bigger size blur from image manipulations is now sharp as intended due the size of the documents. Am I wrong?
----
Confusion and Another separate talk.
If you plan to do a visual novel project. I saw a visual novel that works/has a two size resolutions versions of the game. One that's 1440p and then 1080p. How would I work with 1440p scale it down to 1080p. Judging by when I try to scale down on TVPaint it turns out blurry. What do you do if want to scale down the image and have two size version?
---
Another Separate Talk?

To watch a film a viewer usually prefers a certain angle of view. A notebook will be close to the eye, say 50 cm. A big home TV will be 3 to 5 m apart from the viewer. A cinema screen is at least 10 m apart from the first viewer.

To calculate resolution you work with pixels per angle.

(Here's a paragraph from a Dolby PDF:)
The best measure of screen size as perceived by the audience is that of subtended angle. Folk legend has it that the first person walking into an empty theatre will choose a seat two-thirds of the way back from the screen, possibly half of the way back in the seated area, depending on the clear space between the screen and the front row of seats. The best measure of perceived screen size is that of subtended angle. The audience is conscious of screen size not by absolute dimension, but by angular percentage of vision. “Rational man” sitting in the prime seat two-thirds of the way back will see a screen which subtends a horizontal width of 35, 40, 45, 50, or 55 degrees.

The human eye has a resolution which roughly equals 2K horizontally over a movie frame, corresponding to a viewing angle of about 45°. You spread the same 2000 pixels over the same angle, no matter which device (cinema, monitor, cell) you use. (Rules like this are blurred nowadays since people tend to watch any content on any crappy device under any crappy viewing circumstances.)

Projecting 4K instead of 2K over the same distance gives a small increase in definition, but only a really small one, because the human eye in a correctly positioned audience doesn't have more definition. (There are lots of other effects working here which we happily ignore today.)

However shooting in 4K has some real advantages, since nearly every shot today becomes a SXF shot. If you start high (4K), the inevitable quality degradation from multiple interpolation passes will give you a very decent low (2K) result. If you do the same with a 2K shot, it will look blurry and bad in the end.

A 4K pipeline is multiple times more expensive than a 2K pipeline. It depends on your budget which resolution you work with, and on your style as well. Japanese anime with extremely thin straight lines profit from 4K, my own drawings with a thick rough pencil line look fine in 2K and don't need more resolution, aside from my computer not being able to do 4K anyway.

Your fear of people "looking down on your crappy artwork" is unnecessary. Nobody zooms in into a movie.

http://forum.tvpaint.com/viewtopic.php? ... ark#p80195" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However shooting in 4K has some real advantages, since nearly every shot today becomes a SXF shot. If you start high (4K), the inevitable quality degradation from multiple interpolation passes will give you a very decent low (2K) result. If you do the same with a 2K shot, it will look blurry and bad in the end.

I'm confuse. ????Working on bigger document size then actual file???? Does it relate to the topic at hand yet when downscaling yet it still gets all blurry still?