I saw a post on usenet that reminded me of this old puzzle I keep trying (unsuccessfully) to solve.

Take a photo, any photo, and make it look like it's getting progressively more and more pixelated until they actually start to fly apart.

I guess the hard part is the pixelation. Once a way to attractively pixelate an image is found, we can work on making a progressive version.

By the way, "pixelation" is when pixels get so big you can see them. I'm looking for a way to make an image look perfectly normal on one side, and the pixels get smoothly larger towards the other side. The 'fly apart' part is a frill, and easy enough to do.

I fiddled and struggled (mostly the latter) with this on and off today. Came nowhere close to where I think Doug is trying to go and after a couple hours of frustration found myself strolling aimlessly down Experimental Filterland Blvd. - AGAIN!

Of the many images I just trashed (I think I had a day like Fugitive has once in awhile), here's one that was (to me) at least interesting, so I titled it appropriately (see attachment filename).

Thanks for the inspiration, Doug. I'll try again another day. If possible would you post a link to the image that caught your attention?

If nothing else I got a couple ideas for future projects. That made the journey fruitful.

~DannyR~

That's getting there, but more tile-like than pixel-like. And it wasn't a specific image that caught my eye (although I do remember seeing a logo that used a variation on this somewhere).

Closer?

Forgive the not stellar layer blending. I'm about to head off to the county fair and wanted to get this posted predeparture.

Danny, that second one is impressive...looks like a lot of work!

Phyllis

Danny: Looks pretty cool, and is very similar to what I had in mind, but it still looks like the print is falling apart, and not the pixels.

I wonder how the news pixelates people's faces when they want to hide their identity?

If you are talking about the same thing I am thinking of, the pixels separated and some turned different directions and they were different sizes. It is a program, or plug in, and right now I can't think of the name but I saw it in a magazine, later I will try and find it for you.

Doug, when I first read your post, this is what I thought you meant and it's been really bugging me how to do it so I can't sleep and here I am at 2:30 in the a.m. trying to figure it out.

What I finally settled on is this:

1. zoom out so your picture appears very small on the screen
2. take a screen shot of the little bitty picture
3. paste the screen shot into a new document with resolution set to half that of the original
4. zoom out on this second picture until you see the amount of pixels you want (or you run out of screen room whichever comes first LOL)
5. take a screen shot of this pixelly zoom
6. go back to the original picture and paste the pixelly screen shot into a new layer - you will need to adjust the size of the image you just pasted so it matches the original - I selected the content of the layer and used free transform to make it fit
7. take another screen shot of the original layer and paste it into a new document with resolution half what you set in step 3
8. zoom out again until you get the effect you want and do the screen shot and paste again
9. repeat as many time as you want "steps" in the pixalation - when pasting each new layer, make sure the one you just pasted is at the top of the pile.

Now you should have a document with 5 or 6 layers probably called "Background", "layer 1", "layer 2" etc.

Close the eyes of all but "Background" and "layer 1". Make sure "layer 1" is active and add a layer mask to it. Make a rectangle marque at the left side of layer 1 and fill the rectangle with black - this will allow some of the background to show through. Now add a layer mask to layer 2 and make and fill a bigger rectangle. Repeat with the remaining layers one at a time.

Each of the layers you pasted will have a different amount of pixalization so when you're done with the layer masks, you should be able to see the different amounts. I went with a big soft brush and painted black along the edge of each "step" to soften them up a little.

Of course, you will have to adjust each layer for tone and color so they match up and probably have to move the layers a bit so the features line up.

Anyway, with some tweaking, this might do what you want - please excuse any fractured English in the above explanation - I'll try to correct it once I've had some sleep.

Here's the result of my efforts - I didn't worry about making it perfect, I just wanted to show the pixels.

Margaret

Please excuse the long winded explanation above - it was late (or early depending on how you look at it LOL)

I think I simplified it a bit.

Zoom your original layer until it's around 3 inches on the longest side. Do a screen print of the image at that zoom. Paste the screen print into a new document that has a resolution at something less than the resolution of the original. What resolution you chose depends on how many "steps" you want in the gradual pixalization.

Now zoom the new document until some pleasing degree of pixalization occurs. Take a screen shot of the pixalated image, paste it back onto a new layer in the original document.

Zoom the original again to make it smaller, take a screen shot and repeat the above instructions setting the resolution of the new document lower each time and also zooming the original so it keeps getting smaller.

Make sure you always paste each new layer at the top of the stack or move it there.

When you think you have enough layers, start at the top of the stack and using layer masks, clear away the top layer to reveal the layer beneath and continue doing this until some of all the layer is revealed in a stepwise fashion.

Adjust colors, move layers to line them up etc. and voila, you have a gradually pixalated image. Takes some trial and error until you get the right amount of pixalization etc, but it makes an interesting effect.

Hope this makes sense.

Margaret

Doug, Is this what you're looking for?

Margaret:
Since I read your first post shortly after you made it, it made PERFECT sense to me at the time! (LOL) Must be a latenight thing! Meant to reply then, but got distracted and hit the hay shortly thereafter.

Appreciated both posts, especially the detail in #2!

- - - - -

Antonio:
What a terrific combination of effects. I have often wondered how I might make a practical and artistic use of Extrude. Never even considered combining it with other effects.

I'm truly inspired by this one. A great way to start my weekend!

- - - - -

Thanks to both of you for your efforts & contributions. This is turning into an amazing thread!

~DannyR~

Again, so close. The pixelization starting with the kids legs is perfect, and on the right side it is great.

This is not to say I don't like the effect of the flying cubes, I do. Very cool, in fact. It's just more 3D than I had in mind.

Hows this? I used gimp, which has a pixelize filter. I just made diffrent layers every 100 pixels and doubled the strenght of the effect every layer down.

That's the closest yet to the pixelization I had in mind. Now just get the pixels to start fraying and spreading and dropping out, like it's digitally disintegrating.

I want a filter like that for PS :)

Better???
How about now?

I feel like the blind man describing the woman he once knew :)

Again, very close. I was looking for something more static, but it's obvious from these entries that the problem is my communications skills and not anyone's artistic expertise.

Heck, I can't even tell myself what I'm looking for here :)

How about this? Btw, i made the backround pattern myself, about halfway through it i forgot what i was making it for and was wondering what the pomo pic was loaded up for. Btw, i could always remove the backround if thats a little too goofy.

It's actually pretty close, and that binary background is very cool :)

Well, I couldn't resist playing with this since it seemed like a real puzzle...

I don't think I came up with what you were looking for, but I kind of liked the results so I'm posting it.

"What the hey, y'know...?"

I made a duplicate of the image and then made the duplicate smaller. Then I copied and pasted it to a new layer on the original image, stretching it until it fit using free transform.

I did this several times to make several layers, each one of an increasingly lower resolution, making sure they went from highest on the top to lowest on the bottom.

Then I started cutting away pixels on each layer, using the square marquee tool to choose large chunks of the image, decreasing the size of the cut progressively to get the image gradiated in resolution.

Next, I chose each layer and pixellated it, starting with the lowest resolution layer and giving it the most pixellation, and working my way up progressively to the top (highest resoultion) layer.

I flattened the image and copied the layer. I ran smart blur and set to Screen blending mode. I used the eraser on the layer until I got it blended and smoothed.

I flattened again, and chose a random color with the magic wand. I filled all of that selection with white and then added a gradient mask to the layer.

That's about it as far as I remember...

That's pretty darn close! :)

Jak's technique is exactly the same one I used in my posts early this morning (that you said you didn't like Doug LOL)

Maybe Jak explained it better - maybe you just like sunflowers.........

Margaret

Doug:

I'm restating something you noted a couple posts back for clarification / confirmation:

As one gets closer to the edges, where random pixels start dropping out, part of the desired effect is the "disintegration" (if you will) of the expanded pixels, in that they gradually degrade from perfect squares to "ragged edged" pieces.

BTW: I believe automating this process would be among the correct answers to the question, "How might one use Photoshop 7 scripting?" especially the random pixel selection and obliteration.

Have I ever posted anywhere on this entire forum that I "didn't like" an image? :)

Honestly, Margaret, I missed seeing yours completely. It does have the progressive pixelization I'm looking for, but Jak's has the digital disintegration thing I was also looking for.

Dan: Blame my poor communications skills. I'm not looking for degraded individual pixels. Rather, I'm looking for an image that is degraded by progressively more severe pixelization until they finally start dropping out and leaving the image itself (not the pixels) ragged. But the individual pixels would still be square and aligned.

Whew! I never thought this would gather so much interest :)

Doug and Jak, my post was out of line and I apologize.

If I could retract my previous statement and start over, I would say that when I saw Jak's explanation of what she did, I was amazed that I had come up with a solution that was so similar to hers. I greatly admire Jak's work and hope some day to have half the PhotoShop expertise that she has.

Memo to ME: don't post at the end of a long day when you've been running on 2 hours sleep.

Margaret :depressed :depressed

Jak,
I think yours came closest to what Doug wanted. Of course only Doug has the final say.
Tony

PSD 7 has a filter called mosaic, which does this...

Is it closer?

Best regards
michael

Hi Michael:

Welcome to RetouchPRO.

I think this is right in the ballpark. I believe you (better than anyone so far) has achieved the "image disintegrating look" Doug is looking for (not that that issue has been clarified).

PSD - that's the file suffix for Photoshop. Is Photoshop 7 what you meant or does PSD stand for another application?

Anyway, thanks for joining us and posting an example. Hope to see more of your works.

~DannyR~

Hi DannyRaphael

Yes, you're right. It should have been PhotoShop7.

Great place here!

++michael

"Clarified" he says :)

I think Jak had it closest so far. But there must be an easier way.

I've seen a quick tip on eyewire.com that might be what you're looking for. It's at:

http://www.eyewire.com/tips/mini/nearest.html

The effect seems very simple to create.

That's a good tip. I've been playing with no interpolation, but it never occured to try nearest neighbor. Thanks.

Hello everyone

What am I missing here?

Why not use the mosaic filter that comes with the PhotoShop-program?
It lets you specify excactly how big the pixels should be, and you dont have to resize.

To my eye this is the same result - is it not?

I wanted to put a smiley here, but I couldnt work it out :D

Best regards
Michael

OOh I made a smiley.....wonder how?

++m

Linda:

Terrific tip. Just the kind of stuff we need around here. Welcome to RetouchPRO!

Michael:

And welcome to you, too. Appreciate you jumping in with a good question.

You're not missing anything re: why not use Mosaic filter? The funcational wish was to get these results w/o multiple passes of Mosaic, layer masks, etc. plus have the ability for random pixels to start "dropping out" near the edge of the image... without a lot of manual effort.

BTW: This forum software is wired to replace common stroke combinations such as colon-D, or semicolon-right paren with graphical equivalents. Click on a 'smiles icon' from the box at left (when in edit mode) to get the same results. One of the bonuses of this site!

~DannyR~

Originally posted by DannyRaphael
Linda:

BTW: This forum software is wired to replace common stroke combinations such as colon-D, or semicolon-right paren with graphical equivalents. Click on a 'smiles icon' from the box at left (when in edit mode) to get the same results. One of the bonuses of this site!

~DannyR~

For a long time, I didn't know what you were talking about Danny - I didn't have a box at the left with smileys in it. Then, I went to the UserCP area to change something else and stumbled across the vbCode option - voila! I now have the smiley box.

From the pop-out menu, select "User CP", click on the "Edit Options" button, scroll down and click "yes" to vbCodel.

Margaret

Hello all,

My 1st visit to this excellent Forum and first post.

I have, I believe, an exactly similar ideal to what Doug Nelson was asking for back when this topic was raised. He wants the pixels completely separated, and rounded, and themselves not so much degraded as fuzzier (at least, that's my wish). If I had a piece of well known art I could reference for you, I would, but I can't come up with one.

So simply put : you know what a billboard photo looks like when you get close-up to it? Each pixel is a mess of CMYK color, completely unintelligible, except when viewed at a good distance. Each pixel is very close in size to the next and almost all spread evenly apart. Together, they form a whole only able to be viewed from a long way back. That's the effect we are after in PS with an Action of some type.

How's that Doug?

P.S. I've contacted a good mate of mine who runs his own printing business, as I have a hunch the answer here is very technical and requires some lateral thinking. My assumption is that PS Actions are not normally able to produce the required effect because the photo needs to be 'digitally dissected' somehow, meaning, the pixels need to be stripped into idenitifed rows and columns first, then those rows and columns pulled apart, before a final PS action is layed over the top (noise perhaps?) to make the final image work. PS Actions would be unable (I believe) to do this first part of stripping, and thats why this doesn't appear possible in that program as yet.

However, my friend points out that what happens with photos that are then turned into billboard sized posters is; that they are converted into CMYK (in other words, color separated) and then blown up (magnified) onto canvas/paper. The digital finishers they employ either do this with filters on their Macs before printing, or they let the natural process of printing images at extremely large sizes do the work for them. Follow me?

More when I have it....

jon

It sounds like you're speaking more about the "rosettes" that are made up of the offset printing dots. I think PS has a filter to simulate this. And you're right, it's very technical. Rosette pattern is something argued over with great passion amongst prepress professionals.

Hi Doug,

Have found the PS filter to emulate this: it's Pixelate/Color Halftone, which seeks to emulate the Prepress process as talked about.

It works like this : Convert your image to CMYK 1st, then apply the filter above with the Prepress parameters of 15, 75, 0, 45 for Channels 1 thru 4. This doesn't give a perfect prepress image, I don't believe, but it's looking pretty good.

Attached is a crop of a TIFF photo I've been working on using this process. Is THIS closer to what you were after? It certainly is for me.

(Apologies for the poor quality - saved it down to 7% quality to make it under the 100K file size limit)

jon

Variation on a theme

EDIT: Oh dear, i should paid attention to the start date on this thread before i started tinkering, i just did a search on google for ' disintegrating an image+photoshop ' and this thread came up 2nd in the search results, i thought that was kind of quick even by googles standards

Note to self: Much pay more attention !!! :(

The real stipple portraits (the ones you see in the paper each day) are drawn with a photo as the key part. Depending on the artist, they use the photo they draw from differently. The thing I have noticed about computer generated Wall Street Journal Portraits is that the size of the dot cannot be changed as easily as a hand drawn one. Check out this site to see hand drawn examples Wall Street Journal Portrait (http://www.nolinovak.com).

Closest yet to what I had in mind (plus it's a frog pic, always a plus):
http://www.creativepro.com/img/story/102204_PSpixels.pdf

When I first saw this thread I thought this would be a great playground for scripting.
(Many, and public) Thanks to Danny, I've got Javascript up and running here at work.
Here's a first effort (plan to do a lot more) - did a script to punch holes, then put in some drop shadows.

Rô

More scripting fun.....
Rô

Exceedingly cool. Perhaps you could discuss how-to details over in the Scripting forum?

Ro...

If I may offer my "wishlist..." :)
* Selection based (to isolate what area got pixelated). Default = all.
* A variable that would control amount (or ~ %) of pixelation, e.g., 1 = a few random squares, 10 = lots of squares
* Ability to choose size of square
* Squares isolated on a separate layer to which layer effects could be applied.

The first and third could be based on selections (converted to named alpha channels) made via an action that goes on to call the script.

The second could come from a reply to a dialog generated by the script.

What I'd give to know JS better! In the mean time, you ROCK!

~Danny~

If I may offer my "wishlist..." :)
Reply in the Scripting thread (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showpost.php?p=80428&postcount=2).
Rô

Version 3.0.....
Javascript (here) (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?p=80534#post80534) for the hard work, Drop shadows and colouring for the ornaments.
Think I'm almost there!

Rô

Version 4:
Last try at this script (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?p=81046#post81046)..... maybe(?)
Rô