Pixelated

[Doug Nelson]

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.

[DannyRaphael]

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~

[Doug Nelson]

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).

[DannyRaphael]

Closer?

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

[pstewart]

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

Phyllis

[Doug Nelson]

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?

[platscha@cs.com]

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.

[winwintoo]

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

[winwintoo]

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

[angue]

Doug, Is this what you're looking for?

[DannyRaphael]

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~

[Doug Nelson]

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.

[darkstar]

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.

[Doug Nelson]

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

[angue]

Better???
How about now?

[Doug Nelson]

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

[darkstar]

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.

[Doug Nelson]

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

[Jakaleena]

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...

[Doug Nelson]

That's pretty darn close!

[winwintoo]

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

[DannyRaphael]

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.

[Doug Nelson]

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.

[Doug Nelson]

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

[winwintoo]

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

[angue]

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

[michaeld]

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

Is it closer?

Best regards
michael

[DannyRaphael]

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~

[michaeld]

Hi DannyRaphael

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

Great place here!

++michael

[Doug Nelson]

"Clarified" he says

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