What's new

Best way to recreate this image at a higher resolution in PS?


AVR2

New Member
Messages
4
Likes
0
This is a blown-up screen grab from a standard-definition video source. I want to recreate it from scratch in PS to give me a proper high-resolution version.

eliminate 7 BIG.jpg

On the face of it, it seems like it shouldn't be too difficult. I'm thinking it's only four solid colours plus the grid (102 x 76 blocks), but I can only use PS to a pretty basic level so I have no idea of how complex it would actually be.

My thinking is that I just need to create a white background, put a grid on top, and then use a square brush to paint in the colours, using the screen grab as a template.

I've tried doing this, but crucially, the brush won't snap to the grid.

Thanks in advance for any pointers...
 
Last edited:

Paul

Former Member
Messages
12,881
Likes
7,024
A better version here for you to get the request across.

Blakes-7-Header-2.jpg
 

AVR2

New Member
Messages
4
Likes
0
Cheers Paul - looks like you've actually pretty much done it! What exactly did you do?

I'd already found that pixel art tutorial, but I'm not sure how to apply it to my situation, given that I want to copy an existing large image. If I could get the brush to snap to the grid blocks, it would be a piece of cake just to "paint over" the screen grab.
 

Paul

Former Member
Messages
12,881
Likes
7,024
Any image a new blank layer go to VIEW SHOW GRID then work the pixels with a square brush set at the same size as the grid pixels/boxes.
 

AVR2

New Member
Messages
4
Likes
0
It doesn't work. The brush will not snap to the empty space in the middle of the grid blocks. Instead, the centre of the brush snaps to the intersections of the grid lines:

blocks.jpg

Can you explain what approach you took? Did you effectively just paint over the original the way I'm trying to, or did you use different techniques?
 

Paul

Former Member
Messages
12,881
Likes
7,024
All i did was make the square brush the same size as the grid squares then zoomed in and added blocks to grid boxes (THAT IMAGE ABOVE IS NOT MINE IT IS OFF THE NET).
 

MrToM

Guru
Messages
3,504
Likes
3,226
...the brush won't snap to the grid...
I think that IS your problem....that it IS snapping to the grid.....you want it to snap to the middle of a pixel.....and I've bad news....It ain't gonna happen.

With 'Snaps' on and set to 'grid' you'll have to click in the top left corner of a pixel to get it to fill correctly....and even then its no guarantee. Clicking the 'middle' of a pixel is just a random lottery as to which pixel gets filled.....if at all.

You should find though that at pixel level you don't really need 'snaps' on anyway.....if you have the grid visible its easy enough to place down pixels accurately without needing any 'snapping'.

I'm a bit unsure as to why you want to do this pixel by pixel anyway....even at its original size it would take some considerable time to do but I think you want to make it ever larger? (Its not exactly clear what you want to do to be honest).

If you just want a larger version then re-sample it.
If you want to re-create it then by what method?
If you want to increase the resolution then just type it in...

What exactly is it you want to do?

Don't take that the wrong way.....its just a bit confusing from your first post, it can be interpreted in many different ways especially as the terms you've used do not really correlate with the question.

If you could clarify that would be good. :thumbsup:
(I'll start you off by saying that 'resolution' does not mean how big an image is! ;) )

Regards.
MrToM.
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,341
Let me backtrack a couple of steps: The main problem that I see here is that we are attempting to work from a screen-shot version of the image:

(a) whose pixel dimensions are considerably larger than that of the original artwork; and,

(b) which contains annoying pixel grid lines that happen to be (even more annoyingly) fuzzy.

Because of (a), even if one down-rez'es the given image to the true pixel dimensions, there is no guarantee that there will be perfect registry between the well defined pixel grid in your current workspace with the pseudo pixel grid shown in the artwork, so there are going to be all sorts of problems in getting brushes and other tools to be placed correctly.

Because of (a) and (b), I took a different approach.

My first step was to ingest the image through ACR and use the controls there to ensure a neutral gray background, brighten the dark areas and saturate the colors in the original.

Next, I changed the preferences in my PS to use nearest neighbor interpolation everywhere in PS that might be relevant, and turned on "snap to grid".

I then used the quick selection tool ("auto enhance" MUST BE turned off to work correctly) to select each of the different colored areas, red, light blue, and dark blue. The following shows a "walking ants" display of the union of three areas of color immediately after using the quick selection tool:

used_quick_select.jpg

I then made a mask for each colored area, and using the pencil tool at a sub-pixel radius, touched up any spurious pixels, turning them white or black, as appropriate. Fortunately, these were almost all clustered around the edges of the areas, so there weren't all that many to fix:

red_selection_after_touch_up.jpg

I then poured red into the area defined by the preceding mask and got essentially a perfect version of this section of the image, ie, absolutely straight edges, the annoying pixel grid lines removed, no spurious edge pixels. This was at exactly the same pixel dimensions as the original, but since the OP asked how to enlarge this, as my final step, I used the "image size" command (in "nearest neighbor" mode) to enlarge it by a factor of 4 (ie, about 2500 px wide instead of the original 102 px wide in the 1st post). As you can see, it enlarged well, with sharp edges preserved. I put it on a black background instead of the original white background because I felt that this would show any anomalies (eg, fuzzy edges, erroneous pixels, etc.) better than on a white background. Obviously, the color of the background is trivial to change.

Blakes-7-Header-2-tjm01-acr-ps02a-4x-01.jpg

(Double click on it to see it at the full, 4x pixel dimensions.)

I'll leave it to the OP to do the other colors.

HTH,

Tom M

PS#1 - I found absolutely no problem in filling pixels by clicking anywhere vaguely near the center of the pixel, not on the top left corner, as MrTomM experienced.

PS #2 - The issue of the two meanings of the word, "resolution" is, once again, raising it's ugly head here. @MrToMM, I would *strongly* urge you (as I mentioned in my private message to you a month or two ago) to replace all occurrences of the word, "resolution" with either "ppi", or "pixel dimensions". Doing so sets a good example as well as makes it crystal clear exactly what aspect of the image is being discussed.

For the OP's benefit, depending on the context, the word, "resolution" can mean either the "ppi" setting used in Photoshop, OR the dimensions of the entire image in pixels (ie, how much information an image can contain). Hopefully pointing out this ambiguous meaning clarifies MrTomM's closing statement that resolution does not mean how big an image is. Clearly, "ppi" does not tell one anything about how big an image is (ie, the pixel dimensions"), but when, for example, used in the common meaning of the term, a "higher resolution" camera obviously will have more pixels (ie, larger pixel dimension images). Such confusion is why I am so adamant about using more precise terminology than the ambiguous term, "resolution".
 
Last edited:

Top