I'm importing my stimulus from a folder. I would like to make them bigger *the actual image size is 120 pix (height) x 170 pix (width). I've tried to double the size by using this code in the PsychoPy Coder:
stimuli.append(visual.ImageStim(win=win, name='image', units='cm', size= [9, 6.3],
(I used the double number in cms) but this distorts the image. Is it any way to enlarge it without it distorting, or do I have to change the stimuli itself?
Thank you
Just to answer what Michael said in the comment: no, if you scale an image up, the only way of guessing what is in between pixels is interpolation. This is what psychopy does and what ANY software would do. To make an analogy: take a picture of a distant tree using your digital camera. Then scale the image up using all kinds of software. You won't suddenly be able to see the individual leaves since the software had no such information as input.
If you need higher resolution, put higher resolution images in your folder. If it's simple shapes, you may use built-in methods such as visual.ShapeStim and it's variants: visual.Polygon, visual.Rect and visual.Circle. Psychopy can scale these shapes freely so they always stay sharp.
Related
I started to write a small engine to render a 2d isometric map. A friend of mine made a small basic image of a train station to use example art for my engine. I tried to import the .png into tiled and create a tileset for it, to then use the information for the rendering of that house.
When I import the image, tiled cuts off the edges of the picture (see attachment "tiled .png import to tileset") on the right and bottom side. I looked into the menus and tried to find information about it but I could'nt find any helpful advice why it happens.
Another thing I find curious is the information within the .tsx file:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<tileset version="1.2" tiledversion="1.2.1" name="bAHNHOF" tilewidth="30"
tileheight="30" tilecount="195" columns="13">
<image source="bAHNHOF.png" width="401" height="468"/>
</tileset>
Shouldn't columns(13) multiplied by tile width(30) result in width of the imported image (i.e. 401). It only is 390 though, so roughly 11 pixels less then the original width.
I probably made a mistake somewhere or am confusing something. Maybe someone can help me?
Thanks in advance :)
Seem like whatever editor you are using wants "whole tile" sizes. This is not uncommon. Increase the size of your base image so that the X and Y align to tile size boundaries to prevent this. 30 for a tile size is also very unusual. I'd expect a power of 2 like "32" or "16".
In short, your importer is culling tiles that are not full size. I'd expect it to display a warning about image size before it did this, but who knows as you didn't state the programs.
When this goes onto whatever platform you are using, a power of 2 tile size will help as well in terms of efficiency, so consider making that change sooner rather than later as well.
Finally, often tiling is done to save memory. If, when you divide up your image into tiles (tile it), you can create identical tiles, the computer can use that knowledge to lessen the amount of memory is needed.
I have a question regarding high quality exports from spotfire to PDF.
I read on Spotfire support page that to obtain highest quality exports for visualizations you should select vectors (instead of rastar). They still provide better quality than rastar graphics with maximum quality (5 out of 5). However, when I export these images to PDF, the quality is relatively low. Is there a way I can increase the quality? Would it help to select e.g. PPT exports? I think manual screenshots are still better in quality, but more timeconsuming. We are looking for end-user friendly interface.
Furthermore, if your table is longer and you use slider, what is the recommended way of exporting such a graphic?
Thanks a lot.
raster graphics are generally lower quality. jpeg, for example, is a raster format, where each pixel in the image is coded to a specific color; if you resize the image, it becomes blurry or loses detail.
vector format defines points, lines, and shapes that make up an image. when you scale the image up or down, there is no guesswork trying to blend pixels -- instead the points are recalculated to whatever size. for example, fonts are usually vector format, which is what allows them to be scaled up or down to any size.
the quality of the vector image may be low due to the zoom settings on your PDF viewer (although the image can be scaled to any size, your screen still relies on pixels to display it), but it is the most possible detail. if you zoom in you will probably see an increase in quality.
manual screenshots probably look "best" because there is no scaling or resizing involved. you can export to PNG (raster) image format to get the same effect.
you will not see an increase in quality by exporting to Powerpoint. either you will export it as a raster image to a PPT slide (default settings) or you will export it as a vector using the "As Editable Image" checkbox (which allows you to modify the image in PPT).
what is your end goal? Spotfire is best suited for viewing in the Desktop or Web Player applications, otherwise you lose a lot of features like interactivity, (potentially) live date. if you have to make a lot of exports maybe it is easier to simply provide a link to the analysis?
to your final question, Spotfire is not very good at table exports. I have had some luck with increasing the page size (A4 or A5, for example) and using Landscape over Portrait. again, I recommend to view it in the application.
I'm trying hard to nicely blur a red circle but everytime i get gradient levels of red and the image looks choppy.
Before:
http://i.imgur.com/6yzMhFI.png
After:
http://i.imgur.com/2dZl4ph.png
How i can acheive a smooth blur ?
If you are referring to the visible circles that separate the gradation levels, that is called banding Here are some ways to fix that:
Increase your document's bit level from 8-bit to 16-bit
This will increase the amount of colors your file can represent, creating more colors that can be used to represent the gradient, making it smoother in appearance.
In Photoshop navigate to Image>Mode>16-Bits/Channel
In GIMP 2.10 (or higher?), navigate to Image>Precision>16 bit..
Display or system settings might be unable to display enough colors
If changing the bit depth does not fix the issue then you might have a hardware or system settings issue.
If it's a hardware issue, your monitor might not have the capability to display enough colors to render the gradient smooth
If it's system settings you will need to go to your operating systems color depth setting, usually located under the system's display settings. It could say something like Millions of Colors, or True Color (32-bit).
The last thing related to settings is that you have a bad color profile set in your system or in your image editing software. It's beyond the scope of this answer. If you don't know how to color calibrate your monitor, then it most likely isn't this and you can skip this.
If you have to have 8-bits
If you absolutely have to keep your document in 8-bit color space then you will have to use dithering or add some noise to your image to confuse the viewers brain into seeing a smooth gradient.
Noise or dithering will confuse the viewers brain into seeing a smoother gradient by setting some focus on the imperfections of the noise/grain/dithering. This doesn't exactly answer your question, but it is about the only option you have if you keep your ultra smooth gradient in 8-bit mode.
Good Luck!
I think you are applying the Gussain-Blur to the entire image try to Select the red circle and apply the Gussain-Blur filter to it
I'm using a 40 x 40 sized image as a search result suggestion image in Windows 8 search. Only advice about the image format I can find is to have correct size for it (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/Hh700542.aspx: "Windows will scale or crop smaller or larger images").
However, the correctly sized image blurs annoyingly. The same thing happens whether I use jpg or png. Original image looks fine, but the result suggestion in the search charm is very ugly, being still of same size! Is Windows converting the image somehow, and how could I get the image to stay crisp?
I haven't noticed blurring with photo-like images, but this image contains clear lines and areas which are vulnerable to any scaling etc.
Update Sep 24:
Here is the test image I used when trying to figure out the problem. I also created different scale versions, but in my case the 100% version was used (that's why the "100" marking) - as I supposed because the resulting image really is 40x40. As you can see, the resulting image (right) is of same size as original (left), but blurry.
it does not happen that often but it seems the right solution in this case was simply to wait ;) I haven't done anything new regarding result suggestion images in my solution and today I realized that the images became crisp. Probably fixed by any of the windows updates.
[Took a stab at answering what seems the related question mentioned in the comments, so I'm posting here as well.]
It sounds like this could be related to automatic scaling of the images. Windows will automatically scale up/down based on pixel density, and you can help things scale well by either using vector-based images or, for bitmap images, supplying scale-specific versions.
For example, to scale an image referenced in markup as "AppLogo.jpg", you'd include these images:
AppLogo.scale-100.jpg
AppLogo.scale-140.jpg
AppLogo.scale-180.jpg
You can also use folders, e.g. "\scale-140\AppLogo.jpg".
For search result images, the 100% image is the 40x40 pixel version, 140 is 56x56, and 180 is 72x72. Just reference the image as "AppLogo.jpg" and the appropriate version will be used automatically. (You can also detect scale with DisplayProperties.ResolutionScale and manually choose an image.)
Here's a couple of articles with more examples/details:
"Guidelines for scaling to pixel density"
"Quickstart: Using file or image resources"
There's also some scaling discussion in the forums (general, not specific to search) here and here.
I'm working on a simple iOS game that's always drawing 5 to 10 layers of 32bit png images which requires enough memory to crash on the ipod touch 4g when retina enabled. On other devices it works just fine. I'm not even getting memory warnings. So I was trying with lower quality images, like RGB5_A1 format, but it looks really bad because I need alpha transparency and lots of gradients.
Since all the images are exports from Illustrator I was thinking that maybe i could just export a vector image and draw in on iOS. From what i was researching hardly anyone tried this and the only option I've come across was to implement a SVG parser for Quartz.
Did I miss anything?
Also I'm worried about performance, but I couldn't find any benchmarks.
Without knowing specifics of your game, I'm going to make a few assumptions based on normal use...
You are not going to want to use straight vector graphics for this. Stick with your raster graphics.
If you are talking about 32 bit color space for your PNG images, then you need to scale back. iOS uses 24 bit images and that includes 8 bits each for red, green, blue, and alpha. As it stands, you have an extra byte for every pixel shown.
If you are using Adobe products, import the Illustrator file into Photoshop and use the "Save for Web..." option. Choose PNG-24 and you'll be all set.