Thursday, January 29th, 2009
A lot of logos on the web look like they were run over by a truck. Blurry, jagged, hideous. Here's how to make your resized logos gorgeous and sharp.
The first point is to always save your graphics and logos as either a GIF or a PNG. Saving solid colour graphics and logos as a jpeg is a catastrophe and inevitably results in nasty digital noise. This sound elementary but I have had three trained graphic designers do this wrong, including a graduate of the Art Institute of California. The only one who knew the right answer (in what format to save a text logo) was our lead programmer, Peter.
For an example, one doesn't have to go further than the website of Royal Bank of Canada.
RBC logo: jpeg text buzz in action
Even billions of dollars won't save you from jpeg text buzz on your logos. Here are the jpeg jaggies in closeup:
rbc logo jpeg text buzz @ 400%
Nasty. Click the logo to see the full image at 400%. Not what you went to design academy to create.
Now that we have the correct save format out of the way (preferably 24-bit PNG - now compatible with all modern web browsers, or if the logo is simple 8-bit GIF with 256 colours can save some space), we can move on to how to handle small size text correctly.
There is one very important rule in icon design which says:
Design your icon for each size separately.
This is because, if you have for example 128 x 128 px icon, after resizing it to 16 x 16 px, you will see nothing or It will not looks how it should. The best solution is design It also for 16 x 16 pixels.
Difference between resizing and designing to small size.
Example how is it doing in Apple (Home folder icon in Mac OS 10.5)
But in some cases is designing smaller version is just too time consuming. During the course of a day a graphic designer needs to resize a logotype or graphic to a smaller size many times. We can't hand draw every one. But if you need the logotype in very small dimensions and you want to maintain quality, it's not easy.
A standard resizing can give your logo or text jagged edges even if you have original vector file. If your find the text blurry or illegible after downsizing, you can start by using the different anti-aliasing techniques in Photoshop testing for the best result. The options are:
None | Sharp | Crisp | Strong | Smooth
Different Anti-aliasing options in Photoshop
(From top: None, Sharp, Crisp, Strong, Smooth).
400% zoomed on the right.
Result with our method. 400% zoomed on the right.
We usually have the best results with Strong. The result will be a bit blurry but usually attractive. But with very small text, photoshop will not get very good resullt. So we need another solution…
This is result after standard resizing.
Edges are too jagged.
The image you want to resize should be in vectors (That means Shape Layers and Text Layers in Photoshop). The idea is to make very big image, and downrez it to 10% size and let Photoshop solve our problem.
- Blow up your vector image to 10 x bigger image size than the size you want in resullt (Photoshop: Image > Image Size… ).
- Open File > Save for Web & Devices…
- Change image size to the values you want (remember, your image is now 10 times bigger, so your new values should be 10% of Size you have before opening Save for Web & Devices…) and set quality of resizing to Bicubic Sharper.
- Save your file.
Now in the small image you can see clean edges of our logotype.
Example: you have 500px wide image and want 150px width. Then Resize it from 500 px to 1500px and export it via Save for Web & Devices… with 150 pixels on width.
Compare the diferences with standard resize and our method:
Normal poor result on left with standard resize.
Result of our method on right.
Some differences can be seen after zooming both images. Especially on letters f and o.
Example 1: Standard resize on left. Our method on right. 400% view.
Another zoomed example. There are not a lot of difference for first look, but on the letter m or a you can see that text on left is too strong and jagged.
Example 2: Standard resize on left. Our method on right. 400% view.
Note: You can do this also with non-vector images, but then you will need to have a four to ten times larger file than your destination size as your starting point.
For best results you should always use round numbers, i.e 10%, 20%. 25%, 50% of Original size for best results.
Why?
With a round number, Photoshop divides the pixels by a multiple (2 or 4 or 5 or 10) which means Photoshop doesn't have to interpolate nearly as much.
If you start form a large enough original, an exact multiple becomes less important as Photoshop has lots of pixels to choose from when interpolating and the rounding will not be as noticeable.
By Alec
IT |
Thursday, January 29th, 2009
Ever have the experience that you send someone the wrong message in Skype or worse yet, you send the right message but to the wrong person?
It happened to me today when I wanted to send one of my staff my client's contact info. Instead I sent him his own contact info.
Embarrassing.
But he was offline at the time. So the message showed as pending.
Is there anyway to cancel a pending Skype message?
It's great when something works the way it should.
Yes, there is a saved by the bell feature in Skype and it works even on the Mac version. If you right click, you can remove the pending message like this:
How to Erase a Skype Message
Once you've gotten rid of the message, unfortunately, you are not completely off the hook.
When your client (or girlfriend, as the case may be with mistaken messages) comes back online, he or she will see the text "This message has been removed". Still, it's a lot easier to explain an error message than errant information.
Traces of a Skype message removed
If the person is online and you are quick, you can remove the message before he or she sees it, apparently for up to at least one hour.
This is a great Skype feature.
By Alec
IT |
Sunday, January 18th, 2009
I just found a great little utility to test backup systems.
It's called Backup Bouncer and like the bouncer in a bar Backup Bouncer is there to keep the patrons honest. It will let you know ahead of time if your backup system is letting you down in complex ways, like not copying metadata or is blowing out resource forks or resetting creation dates.
These are the sorts of things you won't notice until you've lost your original and for some reason your Aperture or iPhoto library won't run properly anymore.
Of course, even a defective backup is better than none.
I was happy to see that my main backup tool SuperDuper! passes the test with flying colours. (For full bootable backup, Mike Bombich's CCC (Carbon Copy Cloner) is back in the game as well, after a couple of difficult years, passing all tests as well - as a past donater, I guess I own CCC as well.)
That's great news as it means I don't have to test SuperDuper! myself . Indirectly I do test SuperDuper! by booting from my bootable backup after most backups and doing a bit of work just to be sure that the bootable backup really boots and really works.
But as good as SuperDuper! is for a whole drive bootable backup, is it (and CCC) awkward for backing up a directory or two. You need a second program to be moving image or music files back and forth between two computers. And this second sync program is a bigger problem.
My secondary tool is for syncing directories and moving anything from 500 MB to 50 GB of data around. I use a little application called MimMac which is very easy to use and inexpensive ($10/per computer).
But MimMac is a bit of a black box. We don't really know what goes on inside. Everything seems fine, but what exactly is MimMac copying and how well?
As the backups are not bootable, MimMac is more difficult to stress test.*
Here's the Backup Bouncer report to save you the trouble of setting it all up and running it yourself:
Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok (Critical)
Verifying: timestamps ... ok (Critical)
Verifying: symlinks ... ok (Critical)
Verifying: symlink-ownership ... ok
Verifying: hardlinks ... FAIL (Important)
Verifying: resource-forks ...
Sub-test: on files ... ok (Critical)
Sub-test: on hardlinked files ... FAIL (Important)
Verifying: finder-flags ... ok (Critical)
Verifying: finder-locks ... ok
Verifying: creation-date ... ok
Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok
Verifying: extended-attrs ...
Sub-test: on files ... ok (Important)
Sub-test: on directories ... ok (Important)
Sub-test: on symlinks ... ok
Verifying: access-control-lists ...
Sub-test: on files ... ok (Important)
Sub-test: on dirs ... ok (Important)
Verifying: fifo ... FAIL
Verifying: devices ... ok
Verifying: combo-tests ...
Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... ok
Sub-test: lots of metadata ... ok
Not bad. The failures in hardlinks and resource-files in hardlinked is similar to Apple's cp-copy command. Failure in fifo only happens in ditto. FIFO stands for first-in-first-out. As far as I can tell, FIFO is not mission-critical for personal/local backups.
What MimMac gets right that most of the other methods do not get right is metadata. So Benjamin is paying attention. Still not clear what copying engine he's using though.
What is good about MimMac is that it is very fast. What is not so good about MimMac is that you can't do a test run. Either you run your sync or you don't so you can't find out about conflicts or mistakes before you press go. The speed probably makes up for the risk.
I would like to recommend MimMac but can't due to licensing methods. MimMac relies on the esellerate engine for license verification and each license is tied to your specific hardware. If Benjamin goes out of business or just gets tired of MimMac and you upgrade your computer or your hard drive, you have no further access to the software. Full stop. Period. For core programs, I much prefer either open-source (commercial open-source is fine, it doesn't have to be GNU) or if not open-source, at least just a personal license code which will continue to work even if the developer decides to stop work. I've lost enough software over the years to developers leaving the business, that there is no way I want my core functions dependent on whether another person's whim or even health.
Moreover when you switch computers, all software which is tied to hardware either has to be unlicensed and relicensed (forget it!) or it requires emails and phone calls to the developer (one obnoxious developer once told me for his $25 utility as a courtesy he would allow me to license it on my new computer once, but next time I had to unlicense his utility or he wouldn't issue a replacement key - what do these developers think: their two-bit utility is one of five applications we own: this licensing system just doesn't scale and reminds me of the Lubyanka in Moscow).
The worst developer in Mac backup actually runs background spyware applications on your network full-time if you decide that you want to use his software. The problem is that the spyware not only spies but steals significant background cycles and is constantly pinging the inside of your network, creating no end of dead-end traffic. While the solution is speedy, slowing down my computer is not on. At this point, licensing this guy's software is extremely dicey: you need to give him special codes for your hardware (not even the standard ones) and if you're lucky it might just work. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. He's made using his software so painful that from being the best solution, he's become the worst solution - as well as the most expensive. I guess he's been taking lessons from the RIAA paranoid and self-destructive school of copyright.
So I am looking for an rsync GUI, paid or not. One rsync GUI can always be replaced with another in the worst case. Unfortunately rsync doesn't pass the Backup Bouncer test unless you do a special install which means you have to tinker on all your computers (slowing you down) and that a certain number of these GUI won't work as they will be defaulting to the built-in Apple rsync.
Here's a couple of candidates to save you the time of searching for rsync GUIs (there's a lot of abandonware out there):
- aRsync 0.41. I don't like that a simple rsync GUI is 4.7 MB - what are they hiding in there? I don't like the Pirate logo on backup software. This is the kind of software which could compromise your whole hard drive or send out your financial data. No to pirates or unknown entities. I don't like betas for backup or sync software either. This is an area where you need 100% reliablility. Moreover aRsync fails many tests including semantic links, hard links, creation date, fifo and metadata. Ouch.
- Simple Sync 1.1. I don't know how well SimpleSync works. Perhaps very well if you do follow the instructions for updating rsync. If not certainly it will work as well as Apple's rsync with. It's worth noting that Simple Sync is just 210 KB - that's about right for a wrapper - and that Kevin includes both his mobile number and a link to his main company's home page on the Simple Sync page. I'm feeling much better about using this script already.
Maybe we will build a self-contained advanced rsync GUI ourselves and release it so that we can get the right version of rsync and a GUI - and then we can share it with the world. For the moment, SuperDuper! and MimMac are keeping us safely backed up and synced.
Whatever you do, don't forget to backup!
At least once a week.
For those interested in specific backup strategies for Mac OS X for photographers and other media intensive users, I've written another article called The Backup Manifesto.
* MimMac is capable of bootable backups but I have more trust in SuperDuper! both for technical reasons and for licensing reasons as outline later in the article. On the other hand, if you are willing to accept MimMac's licensing you can probably take a pass on SuperDuper! and use MimMac for everything, saving yourself $28 to spend on a replacement whenever Benjamin decides to abandon MimMac or change his licensing and MimMac won't run on your computer anymore.
By Alec
WordPress |
