
I wasn't kidding when I said you need to trace it using paths.
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 4:06,
archived)

This'd only take a couple of mins though.
*edit* After reading the thread below, Photoshop is NOT the program to be doing it in. You need either Illustrator, Corel Draw or some other program you can manipulate vector nodes.

2 mins to vectorise.
4 mins to get it online.
img3.imageshack.us/img3/8794/halokitty3gx.jpg
linked for her pleasure
I've got a vector version here, which is ideal if you want to take this anywhere into large print. Let me know if you want it.
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 4:47,
archived)
4 mins to get it online.
img3.imageshack.us/img3/8794/halokitty3gx.jpg
linked for her pleasure
I've got a vector version here, which is ideal if you want to take this anywhere into large print. Let me know if you want it.

that must be love.
how did you you do it?
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 4:52,
archived)
how did you you do it?

Like I said, it *really* needed recreating from scratch as opposed to tracing. Tracing is WONDERFUL and it's saved my arse countless times, but for something that's as pure as this it's not only easier to do from scratch, it's the only way to get really accurate lines.
That's the trouble with simple shapes - one TINY irregularity and it throws the whole thing.
As for how I did it, I pulled the original gif into a program made for small spaktards and built over the top of it with vector nodes ;) Two mins, start to export.
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 4:57,
archived)
That's the trouble with simple shapes - one TINY irregularity and it throws the whole thing.
As for how I did it, I pulled the original gif into a program made for small spaktards and built over the top of it with vector nodes ;) Two mins, start to export.

i need this. did you just redraw or was it a a trace prog? gotta learn.
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 5:02,
archived)

No 'automatic tracing' at all.
I've been using Corel Draw since version 3, which is going on 11 years now. I find it's vector tools FAR more powerful and easy to use than Illustrators.
The whole cat face is built up of just 10 nodes around the outer edge - one at each corner point and one at each major curve change. Each eye/nose is made up of three nodes. The halo is simply two elipses. So - two elipses and 19 nodes, plus a few pullings of curves and voilla.
*edit* Even though I've been with Corel Draw for 11 years, I'll be the first to admit that some of the versions of Corel Draw have been unstable sacks of crap. I'm on 12 now and it's rather nice.
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 5:06,
archived)
I've been using Corel Draw since version 3, which is going on 11 years now. I find it's vector tools FAR more powerful and easy to use than Illustrators.
The whole cat face is built up of just 10 nodes around the outer edge - one at each corner point and one at each major curve change. Each eye/nose is made up of three nodes. The halo is simply two elipses. So - two elipses and 19 nodes, plus a few pullings of curves and voilla.
*edit* Even though I've been with Corel Draw for 11 years, I'll be the first to admit that some of the versions of Corel Draw have been unstable sacks of crap. I'm on 12 now and it's rather nice.

coral draw is for very small handicap children. i did it in illustrator.
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 4:48,
archived)

I just saw lots of people struggling with the idea of doing vectors in Photoshop and it made me cringe thinking about how sore their heads would get :)
Good for you for sticking with Illustrator too. I LOVE Photoshop, but I never forgave Adobe for building one of the most counter-intuative programs ever made when they did Illustrator.
/is small and rather handicapped.

without opening illustrator until i sved it, but never cus ILL. it's easy, fast and so compatible with potatoshop
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 4:59,
archived)

At least you avoided the old "smashing your head against the desk" stage then :)
Like I said up there ^^^, tracing rarely gives smooth results on shapes like this though.

what did you use. my file trace is perfect, but when i jpeg'd it, it was all bent. i've traced (threshold) photos at work and they are fine for 300dpi, but when i low res them they fuck up. any tips.
edit. see some of my profile. they have added BITS
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 5:07,
archived)
edit. see some of my profile. they have added BITS

If the trace is perfect it *should* export down as a jpeg perfectly too...
Have you tried exporting them as high res but then converting the high res raster image down, instead of going straight from vector to low-res raster?

not for the logo above though. that was seperate software. i think we're on the same level, i'm just toasted.
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 5:13,
archived)

*Sounds* like you're doing everything right. Kinda hard to tell what's going on without a better idea of what "fucked up" means. If you're getting "other than the normal degradation when you convert to 72dpi" problems, follow up with me next time you see me and I'd love to trouble shoot it.
I'm off to bed now *yawn*
*edit* After reading your edit and checking your profile, the only ones in your profile that look like they've got added bits are a few near the bottom that look like they've got "gif lossy" bits. Other than those, they look great.
Care to link one in this thread and point out some bits? :)
( ,
Sat 28 Jan 2006, 5:16,
archived)
I'm off to bed now *yawn*
*edit* After reading your edit and checking your profile, the only ones in your profile that look like they've got added bits are a few near the bottom that look like they've got "gif lossy" bits. Other than those, they look great.
Care to link one in this thread and point out some bits? :)

I take it you're not in the northern hemisphere then?