Episode 186: A new Face!

186Download the Video! (33:04 56.5MB)
Download the companion file!(0.9MB)

Long time no show – but this project is not dead. For the fresh start a new design for the intro is needed. And a new design needs new colours.

I used the Colorschemedesigner to create a palette of colours fitting the “Original MTG Orange” from the logo. Clever algorithms use old artists knowledge about colour combinations. This site even exports a GIMP palette file which is then imported into GIMP.

For the lettering I wanted some fresh fonts and found them at the League of Movable Type.

The TOC

The video now has chapters – you can jump to the TOC entries!

00:01:00 Finding a palette with Color Scheme Designer
00:04:58 Exporting the palette to GIMP
00:05:43 Find the directory for the palette
00:06:30 Using palettes in GIMP
00:08:20 Creating a new image template
00:09:45 Create a new image
00:10:28 Inserting the logo from a file
00:11:11 Setting guides to half and a third of the image
00:11:44 Move the logo with help of the guides
00:13:20 Free fonts from the League of Movable Type
00:14:10 Editing text in GIMP with the on canvas editor
00:16:24 A drop shadow for text
00:17:36 A drop shadow for the logo
00:18:55 Saving the image
00:19:28 Adding the CC-Logo – loading images from the web
00:20:35 Using layers for different versions of one text
00:27:16 Rapport – stacking layers exactly on top of each other
00:28:29 Moving a stack of “chained” layers
00:29:08 Can you help me with the design?
00:29:44 Outlook into the next episodes

Creative Commons License
Meet the GIMP Video Podcast by Rolf Steinort is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://meetthegimp.org.

29 thoughts on “Episode 186: A new Face!

  1. Very nice to see your videos again. I am curious to see some results from your new camera.
    Since I’ve only just started working with raw-converters, I am looking forward to your show on darktable.

    • I’m also interested in seeing the results. The only worry is the size of the images. My 5D gives me files of up to 40MB, the D800 would then eat over 65MB each shot. Yikes!

      And Rolf’s comments about ram and cpu consumption are sadly true — it’s even much worse with the 2.9 development version.

      Both things combined spell trouble…

          • I can use a smaller format – and I can shoot less and more careful. The camera supports that with a gorgeous viewfinder.
            Think of film, 36 exposures. ;-)

      • That many megapixel add to only noise. Above 6 or 8 megapixel nothing is to achieve. It is just a way to sell new cameras in saying having more megapixel is better. But most of the above megapixels get to only soft down to noise reduce. Never I expected Rolf to trip on such a cheap salesman exploit.

        • I would have bought the D800 with 24 or 18 MP also, the 36 MP are a fine bonus. I wanted a FX (full 35mm frame, 24x36mm) and was not happy with the D700 as it came out. Or I didn’t had the money lying around then, that might have soured the grapes a bit too. Now I could choose between the D600 and the D800 – and there the D800 was feeling much better in my hands and it has a better viewfinder. I can focus manually on that, which was much more difficult with the D600.

          Noise is no problem – the lenses are. The sensor is better than all my glass, only my primes are “good enough”. It’s like with fine grained film, there is a certain point where the sensor/film is not the limit but the lenses are. But as with film – it only shows up at insanely large magnifications.

          Even in low light the noise level is OK, and 36MP gives a lot room for eliminating noise by downscaling.
          Sound like I should try that and make a show from it,.

  2. Nice to hear from you again, looking forward to D800 shots (very nice camera, a friend has one).

    For the logo selection, Right-clicking on the layer and choosing ‘Alpha to Selection’ will give better results.

    About JPG vs. PNG: a quick test of a 100% JPG (your graphic) at best resolution (1:1:1) gives 340 kb while a fully compressed PNG is only 126 kb. Of course, an uncompressed PNG is 3,607 kb so perhaps Steve is not using a compression-aware PNG application?

    Perhaps JPEG 2000 is an option, I believe it’s completely lossless. But now that both Mac and Windows are 2.2 Gamma (previously Macs were 1.8 I think) there should really be no downside to using lossy JPG.

    • I always forget about “Alpha to Selection” – it’s such a great tool.

      I want to compare PNG with more or less brutally compressed JPEG – suitable for a web page with lots of images and traffic. How far can I go without loosing too much? Behind this JPEG there can be a high quality and even perhaps high resolution JPEG for clicking through. I think about people with slow connections – for me the GimpMag site is visibly slow because I sit in 5MBit-Max East-Berlin. The MeettheGIMP header image pops onto the screnn, the GimpMag one “unfolds”. And that is the same machine, same WordPress, same Apache, same connection.

      • You can look at the MTG wiki to see what high compression does to jpeg images (yes, I know the entry is in dire need of an overhaul).
        In the long run, PGF would be a solution to this but only very few programs (and no browsers) support it at the moment.

          • The question is justified. Especially as more and more content today is received on mobile devices, tablets etc. which are smaller than a standard monitor but have a much higher dpi.

      • I did some PHP and Javascript work for a web guy once, he had a 4 monitor setup so that he could preview everything at the different target resolutions. Of course with mobile added to the mix, much more of a problem now. Plus there are now more browser species too. Ultimately everyone kacks at this, and ends up saying ‘this site best viewed with Chrome at 1024 x 768′
        ( or whatever, for instance Firefox at 1920 x 1080, but you get the idea). There are simply too many combinations to be able to support them all, although using vanilla HTML really does help with this.

        I think my test was at 100% for JPEG and no-one actually uses this quality level as far as I know. At the standard (85% I think) level of quality and subsampling (4:2:0) the results would be much smaller.

        The important setting (and a good reason to opt for JPEG I think) is the ‘progressive’ option which means that the graphics occupies screen estate immediately and gradually resolve into full resolution as the graphics downloads. Make sue to clear the browser cache if you want to see this in action.

        There are of course tricks you can use, such as pre-loading the browser cache with all of the website graphics, but these do not help the initial load times.

  3. Nice new video. You could use the Drop Shadow filter to get the effect. This also allows you to set blur radius and opacity. It also means you don’t have to type text twice.

    • Yes, with blur=0 it should be the same. But after each change in the text the filter has to be reapplied. With more intelligent use of CTRL-C CTRL-V than in the video it should be easier.

  4. Pingback: Links 13/2/2013: Vivaldi KDE Tablet Still on Its Way | Techrights

  5. I’ve created a script that generates title slates based on the template presented in your show:

    http://chiselapp.com/user/saulgoode/repository/script-fu/artifact/0ef1e68b25a29ecd33564577dfe37cd737fb02a7

    If you choose to use it, you will need to re-generate your opening slate and your fine print slate because I could not match the bold ChunkFive font exactly (the full range of options available for text is not yet available through the PDB).

    I will be glad to make modifications to the script if you wish.

    As a personal opinion, I am not keen on the ChunkFive font for the titles. The way that the curved bottoms of lowercase letters descend below the flat bottoms of lowercase letters can give a somewhat uneven appearance with longer phrases.

    • Thanks for the script, it is very instructive and well written. I’ll use it at least in a show about Scheme.

      For my header images and the lower third texts I am thinking about using Inkscape. One can simply change the text in the SVG file and then export per command line. Perfectly scriptable. The same should be true for GIMP, I’ll check that out.

      I hadn’t noticed this detail about the font – it’s true. It is a bit “wobbly” and “nervous”. Well, I am not insisting on using that.

  6. Great to see you’re doing better and are back in business!
    I really liked your link tips. The ColorSchemeDesigner did not work today. But I use another website for this purpose since years, which looks so much similar that I first thought they’ve changed their design. So when the one you’ve recommended does not work, try http://www.colorexplorer.com/colormatch.aspx.
    Actually, I do not really like the color combination you have chosen but as you know I am no designer neither so you can only have my impression :)

    • That site looks cool too, I had not known it.

      Do you have an idea for a better palette? I am really open for deas, only the orange has to stay.

      • ColorExplorer is a nice site too, but (at least for me) it’s missing a crucial feature: The option to check colors as to how they appear to color-impaired people. I use that in GIMP all the time, it’s a really important function and — sadly — both Cinepaint and Krita are still missing it.

  7. Pingback: Episode 187: Cleaning Up | Meet the GIMP!

Anything to add from your side of the computer?