Absurd resolutions.

File: Capture.png (192KB, 1074x704px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1074x704px

>>3006798
Computers have to invent pixels whenever an image is resized. Unless you're seeing the image at 100% zoom, the colors are being altered. The process used for rendering changes the results but this means that the edges of the pixels will blend. This forcibly creates new colors and values.

If you had a blue line and a red line at a really high resolution, and then resized them down, they would turn purple.

800px thumbs, then expand to 5k res


no reason to not paint as large as your computer can handle without lag..

File: Capture.png (1MB, 645x938px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 645x938px

>>3006802
Here is a crop of a painting from Ruan Jia. The original file was 6000px tall. Despite the ridiculously huge size, he still used did solid brush strokes as small as 1px.

I thought this was moot at first, but maybe the reason why he has such an incredible control over the values is because the process of displaying the pixels blends those ridiculously tiny scratches into other values. Then painting at a really large resolution has a very important effect on how the values and hues are represented when zooming out or resizing the image down.

>>3006808
>that eye
He's feeling the forms within the forms within the forms.
He's the ultimate form masseur.

>>3006808

6000 pixels tall for that illo isn't "insane" it's just average for the kind of resolutions professionals work with.

What's the hardware solution to improve performance and reduce brush lag when working with large brush sizes? To my understanding the GPU is the problem. I use clip studio by the way.

>>3006808
What >>3006860 said.
Also, he could've easily just worked at a higher resolution (eg. 8000px), then decreased the resolution when he no longer needed to work at that size.
If your image is 100%, then I'm almost positive he did. The lower teeth kind of give it away if it's true.

>>3006864
ram

>>3006916

I don't think so.

RAM will let you have a bigger file in photoshop without your puter shitting the bed but I'm not sure that it helps with big/complicated brushes. I think that is helped along more by CPU speed. Video card only comes into play for certain filters/effects that are capable of taking advantage of it from what I understand.

So basically, get a quad core CPU clocked at 4ghz, go for 32GB ram, and plop any video card in there if your CPU doesn't already have an integrated GPU. I think?

>>3006918
It is.


https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-photoshop-cc-performance.html

>>3006919
CPU and ram over gpu, right.

should be shooting for 16gb of ram at minimum

well kinda need to keep in my that unless you are doing bicubic resezing you still lose quality even when scaling down.

so it your last output is 2kx2k go 4k or 8k

unless you are droping every 4 pixel into 1 you get pixel interplotation.

>>3006798
300dpi, around 5000px for greatest dimension

>>3006798
That's the most genetic monster I've ever seen

>>3006982
Ya it has some pretty dank genetics bruh

>>3006982
All that effort wasted on such an overall utterly generic painting.

>>3006982
Could you say it's the new... /merc_wip/?

With vector masks you can draw at a low res and then scale it up to the desired printsize when you're finished

File: lkj.jpg (69KB, 721x538px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 721x538px

when i paint zoomed out i get this ugly shit, anyway to rectify?

Yep. Looks like a Rancor that has been injected with the T-Virus. Genetic indeed. Rancor + Licker hybrid.

Generic, also. But I don't know why anyone would expect Bungee/Blizzard/Riot/Bioware to come up with anything interesting.

>>3006798
If I'm just doing a little sketch I usually do it around 2 or 3k pixels, but when I go to final I upscale it before rendering to maybe 6 or 7k.

>>3007003

get lazy nezumi, it has []fix photoshop bug in its settings

>>3007044
thanks, looks interesting

make a painting at canvas size 2048 (doesn't have to be well made)

expand to 4096 blur some edges and add detail to the distorted parts, add some intricate touch to parts that need detail

expand to 8192 p repeat the second process

add a finish

or expand to as much as you like with the same process then finish

File: 1494191489186.png (944KB, 1279x677px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 1279x677px

Building on this thread, what resolution does most of /ic/ use? I feel like I don't really know what kind of canvas size to use whenever doing something on my tablet

>>3007883
3k x 3k, then crop or expand as needed.

>>3007894
Same here. I've done prints of my shit too, and at 300dpi and around 3-5k pixels, I've blown an image up to 4 feet tall with no pixelation or anything.

>>3006989
Faggots have technical skill but 0 creativity

File: 17309440_1626951807333388_640407879623226509_n.jpg (43KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x480px

>>3007883
1200dpi, always

This thread is really insightful guys, thanks.
I'm using Krita and I've only been putting out images at 1440p resolution exactly, I'll definitely expand my canvas space.

I don't really use more than 3k, my computer doesn't like it. I think it would explode if I tried to work with 15k.

>>3007883

around 4000-6000, I use an iPad pro

3000x2000

>>3006921

I have 24gb of ram, I don't that's the issue

>>3008153
this

>>3006798
i'm doing 30k x 20k @ 300dpi ... i like being able zoom in for detailing. no lag on pc but i only use 3 layers at a time

>>3006802
This is correct. Color shifts when resizing images - and it happens both ways. I worked at a fine art publisher, and we'd have to apply custom curves whenever we resized anything. We avoided ressing up, because that forces the app to invent pixels to fill the spaces (major color shifts and blur).

>>3007883
My go to size for a painting, depending on it's intended use, is 200% of print size, at 300dpi. I come from a professional publishing background, so 300dpi is standard there. For large printing, I don't worry, I've had 300dpi images printed on billboards, they use special interpreters for that kind of printing.

Pixel dimensions and resolution are intertwined. A 5x5" image at 300 dpi is exactly the same as a 21x21" at 72 dpi - the only difference is screen display. It's the same pixel data, either way. The zoom and tools and brushes should be the same, either way.

As long as you have enough pixels, it's fine. Anything over 11x17" at 300dpi is a bit overkill, really. Why tax your machine? You're really not getting any benefit going larger. Your image will be identical at 300dpi, or 72dpi, as long as the dimensions don't change.

>>3008647
so jelly

someone teach me how to overclock CPU

>>3006808
>1px brush
If you're Ruan Jia, you could paint in any software and it'll still look good.

Sounds like a specs thread to me.

16GB RAM
500GB SSD + 1TB HDD, 4TB Backup Drive
4970K CPU
1440p Asus Main Monitor
1080p Cintiq 22HD Touch
Photoshop CC

For final work, I like to work at 7000 - 9000 px, with many layers (40+). Brushes are fairly lightweight - not a whole bunch of fancy effects on them - but I find they work best at higher resolutions. No lag, no issues. I sell prints and do commercial projects, so this is usually a good resolution to hover around.

Used to have a 2009 Macbook Pro + Intuos 4 that would struggle with 2000px and above documents. Shit was rough.

File: 1450322365729.png (553KB, 777x555px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 777x555px

>12 GB RAM
>750 TI
>i5 3460

Cannot do large brush strokes at above 5000px, but I can still manage to produce stuff.
I can't wait to update.

>>3008798
Is this Shadman's newest piece?

>>3008808
That would be too creative for him.

File: 1496538942899.jpg (23KB, 482x453px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 482x453px

>>3006798
This game could've been great, what went wrong?

File: Yamcha_vs._Omega_Shenron.gif (3MB, 377x207px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 377x207px

Was not expecting this much of a response. Thanks for the advice everyone. Those sizes are way more than what I'm used to, this has been really helpful and I can't wait to try it out

>>3008647
>30k x 20k @ 300dpi

This is redundant to say. There's no use in including the DPI when you've already shared the pixel dimensions. That's not what DPI is for.

>>3006916

ram and scratch disk space + the speed of the hard drive that you're using for scratch disk space.

>>3007044

#which version? i can't find such an option in mine (15.7.3.1740)

>>3009088
https://youtu.be/93GAlxTiuPU

>>3009673
I was thinking about saying that too but decided I wasn't triggered enough

>>3009673
If you assume the file is set for 1 pixel per inch.

3000 x 3000 @ 72ppi is a different sized file than 3000 x 3000 @ 300ppi.

Remember, you're potentially talking to people who don't have the first clue what any of this means, so if they enter 30k and 20k in the default dialog box with 72ppi set, they're making a file 72 times larger than what they need.

>>3006864
For some reason some softwares work like shit on my machine no matter the resolution or brush size, namely any software that isn't photoshop.

>>3009088
Just the story, which still is good if you do the effort.
Gameplay is top tier.

>>3010776
What the hell are you talking about.

DPI is pixel resolution to real print size ratio. 3000 x 3000 @ 72ppi and 3000 x 3000 @ 300ppi is the same fucking file, with exactly same size. But 300 dpi will be printed with better quality and smaller size.

DPI is only needed if you want to create picture that will be printed at some specific size. If you don't wanna print your shit you don't need to think about dpi at all.