PDA

View Full Version : Picture of your Desktop: Narcissu!


Haruka
2005-11-13, 00:11
Yo! Finally the Ultimate Wallpaper is here!
'What is that' you say? Go 'n check it out!
A little hint: read the topic!

Here's a blurred version for hi-res monitors (ar.: 4:3 or 5:4):
http://digilander.libero.it/Setsumi/narcissu.bmp

Here's the original version (best viewed on 800*600):
http://digilander.libero.it/Setsumi/narcissu_original.bmp

And here's a more blurred version ideal for backgrounding it in some app:
http://digilander.libero.it/Setsumi/narcissu_bg.png

And at last, but not the least, here's your fav avatar (96*96):
http://digilander.libero.it/Setsumi/Setsumi.bmp

All the images are Copyright of the original Author and are not intended for illegal reproduction and/or modification.

Credits:
The original Author (Tomo Kataoka) for giving us this masterpiece,
Anna Rita Cicoria (from in-design s.a.s.) for cleaning the images using Photoshop and, finally, Stefano Abbadessa (the poster...) for final editing and localized reconstruction of missing parts with MS Paint (rusty old program but still effective!... 'ya know... that pixel thingie...' and 'doh!... it took three days!') and localized addiction of gaussian blur effect with Fireworks.

Enjoy!

Haeleth
2005-11-13, 01:48
Ah, sorry... I was meaning to do this myself. -_-;;

Shii
2005-11-13, 08:07
PNG version of the same thing!

http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/2228/narcissu9qk.png (blurry)

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/4347/narcissuoriginal8eb.png (originaru)

poisonfrog8
2005-11-13, 11:51
800x600 is really too small for a wallpaper. IMO The minimum size should be 1024x768.

Haeleth
2005-11-13, 12:55
30-40% of the world still runs at 800x600. And, more to the point, 800x600 is the size of the source image...

cyborg_alberto
2005-11-13, 13:24
800x600 is really too small for a wallpaper. IMO The minimum size should be 1024x768.

Edit: What means "IMO"?

1. Take the wallpaper;
2. Use a good photo editor (Like IPhoto Plus 4 or anyone who allows reseze the photo);
3. Resize to 1024x768. Simple! :P

And about the wallpaper...
It's a pretty wallpaper [Cute girls... you're talkin' in my language too. :)]
But I don't think that's the "Ultimate Wallpaper"...
Because of this, I've chosen "Yes... a little..."

See ya someday (I think...)

inuyasha9854
2005-11-13, 19:10
IMO = In My Opinion

Generally, most people prefer not to resize their wallpapers. The image usually gets distorted. Though personally, the amount i resize by, it doesn't distort so much.

cyborg_alberto
2005-11-13, 19:25
IMO = In My Opinion

Thank you for the answer. :)
I'm Brazilian and I have a few knowledge about some english terms, like "IMO", although I know some "short expressions" and obscene words...

Generally, most people prefer not to resize their wallpapers. The image usually gets distorted. Though personally, the amount i resize by, it doesn't distort so much.

Resize from 800x600 to 1024x768 does almost not cause distortions... If they occur in this resize process, they are almost imperceptible.
Of course, you may get a very few, almost imperceptible, quality loss...

see (?) ya! (!?)

2005-11-13, 19:31
[quote=inuyasha9854]
Resize from 800x600 to 1024x768 does almost not cause distortions... If they occur in this resize process, they are almost imperceptible.
Of course, you may get a very few, almost imperceptible, quality loss...

see (?) ya! (!?)

And more importantly (for me) resizing 800x600 to 1600x1200 works perfectly with no loss :)

inuyasha9854
2005-11-13, 19:41
No loss and no blurring?

cyborg_alberto
2005-11-13, 19:41
And more importantly (for me) resizing 800x600 to 1600x1200 works perfectly with no loss :)

See? I'm not alone! :P
I lived resizing 640x480 for 800x600 and vice-versa :)

but... 1600x1200!?
Are you sure you're saying?


See (?) ya! (?)

inuyasha9854
2005-11-13, 20:18
I'll do 800x600 to 1280x1024....occasionally, but it gets rather blurry. Most of the time, i'm downsizing 1600x1200 to 1280x1024

800x600 to 1600x1200....there're bound to be some artifacts somewhere...unless Photoshop's or Paint Shop Pro's "smartsize" has gotten better.

Haeleth
2005-11-13, 22:58
Look at the numbers. 800x600 is exactly half of 1600x1200. So you can just replace every pixel with a square of four pixels, and you get exactly the same picture, indistinguishable from the way it would have been if you'd been running at 800x600.

STaNLI
2005-11-14, 00:25
Whether you scale it in photoshop or let the OS do the scaling, there're never going to be more than 800x600 pixels worth of information there to start with :P

Although speaking of scaling, does anything other than the GIMP do Lanczos yet? It's quite impressive, and can give results that look nicer than cubic~

drmchsr0
2005-11-14, 17:29
Irfanview.

Great if you don't wanna fire up PS or hate the Gimp.

Lanzcos ftw.

zalas
2005-11-14, 23:51
And continuing along my quirk of working with video instead of images, even for still shots, you can LanczosResize() in AviSynth <_<;

(yeah, I once made a wallpaper using a video editing program because I didn't know how to use photoshop well <_<)

cyborg_alberto
2005-11-15, 11:00
Me too :)

I have CorelDraw 9 (The better version, accoding a friend of mine), CorelDraw 11 (Heavy) and Adobe Photoshop 5 (No comments :P), but I prefer to use IPhoto Plus 4 (I use(d) it since P100 times...) because it's a very easy program. My Nayuki+Total Annihilation autorun menu has been made with IPhoto Plus :)
(To see this image, click in one of Total Annihilation Commanders :P)

And about resize! :P
Well, 640x480 and 800x600 are proportional (Or almost proportional, I don't remember...). So you don't see any type of size deformation. Maybe a little quality loss (I think you'll get a Focus loss...)


And about wallpaper! :P
How about a "mix" with 2 themes (Like my Kanon + TA image)? :P
Imagine UT + Mai Kawasumi in UT game instead the UT logo...
Sugoooooooooooooooooi!

See ya! (?)

Shii
2005-11-15, 14:06
Oh hey, I just now noticed that the thing she's wearing isn't a cami swimsuit but rather the towel that was described in the narrative. Attention to detail, that's my middle name.

zalas
2005-11-16, 03:46
Wow, you're right! <_<
Though, it never really occurred to me to figure out what she was wearing >_>

l|ammamama
2005-11-16, 06:11
haha wow, you people -_-

that was a quasi-majorish plot element!

Wolfrider
2005-11-16, 17:57
I voted for the first option; nice trick that first image.

When i played Narcissu (first time, unvoiced) the first thing that came to my eyes was that towel (..What the hell is she wearing...?). At that stage i thought that Setsumi was only 15 years old or something (her appeareance) and the water below her doesn't had any sepecial meaning.

After a full reading, back to the very first screen, the same image was full of meaning.

BTW, Had someone translated the lyrics of the songs in Narcissu? (i remember 2 songs with lyrics) or the little comic that is now in the official page (i'm trying to translate it but i am really bad at this T_T) only the drawing made me laugh hard.

Oh, and please forgive my (probably) bad english, i'm natively spanish speaker.

EDIT: worst engrish ever...

Shii
2005-11-16, 18:11
EDIT: worst engrish ever...Your English is very good.

I'm thinking maybe instead of expanding this forum into topic-oriented boards, it might be a good idea to make different language boards, so people can chat in their native language... but I don't know if there are any people who don't know Englisc and like visual novels; anyway, I have only seen faint outlines of non-English translation.

STaNLI
2005-11-17, 02:17
> Attention to detail, that's my middle name.

Bah, I missed so many details (and so many things that were said in plain text, in the chapter headings...), I managed to get the entire story (http://forums.megatokyo.com/index.php?showtopic=1703289&view=findpost&p=3940197) wrong. I managed to read it twice and experience two totally different plots :P (Although they were both very nice interpretations~)

drmchsr0
2005-11-17, 16:37
I love it!

It's BEAUTIFUL.

Wolfrider
2005-11-19, 10:03
Your English is very good.

I'm thinking maybe instead of expanding this forum into topic-oriented boards, it might be a good idea to make different language boards, so people can chat in their native language... but I don't know if there are any people who don't know Englisc and like visual novels; anyway, I have only seen faint outlines of non-English translation.

only was one word that i changed, but that was awful...

I don't think that language specific forums will help so much, we all are (i believe) in an attempt to learn new languages, so being in a multi-language environment is good (well, for me)

And, for the record, i'm translating Narcissu tu spanish; only that i'm doing very slowly (first translating english -> spanish and then comparing with the japanese text using a kanji dictionary -i can't read kanji alone-) and i must admit that many of the poetic style of the original script is really hard to express in spanish without slight alteration (and i'm afraid to alter something important)
And you are right, there are not many people who likes visual novels and doesn't know english, but there are many that WILL like visual novels in his/her native language; many friends of mine reject the idea of reading visual novels only for the language.

Ah, and i can't make ONSCRIPTER show a letter "Ñ"... that is other story...

I am planning also writing a visual novel, in both, spanish and english (two versions/language select, i don't know now), so the english practice in the forums help me a lot (welcome, corrections!)

In other topic, the translation of "Kira ~snowdrop" was a huge level-up of my english reading skills... ¡That Maiko!

l|ammamama
2005-11-19, 10:28
In other topic, the translation of "Kira ~snowdrop" was a huge level-up of my english reading skills... ¡That Maiko!

haha oh dear, i even had some trouble with a few of maiko's lines =)

Haruka
2005-11-19, 18:47
haha oh dear, i even had some trouble with a few of maiko's lines =)

Lol... i've read it two days ago in a few hours.. imho too short... 'nd too sad...

...ye kno'... haa wa's disappo'nted reed'n ty endin'...

Lol, she was cute and yet this story is so sad...
She was considered as a 'beast'... at least until her encounter w/ Toichi...
I still wonder why it ended this way...

---
VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!
It's up to u, my dear electors, the future possibility of another release of Narcissu's wallpapers!
---

Uh? Did I say anything? O.o;

Oh! Almost forgotten!
You're free to post wallpaper requests for all the AlTogheter's translated v-novels.
So don't be shy and VOTE VOTE VOTE!
Ooops! ^^;;; . . .
I meant POST POST POST!!! ^.-

----
Just another 'terminal-case' patient...

Wolfrider
2005-11-20, 10:40
...ye kno'... haa wa's disappo'nted reed'n ty endin'...
Really a sad ending with a confusing music.
But i must say that strange dialect (original was kansai?) made Maiko very cute (well, for me...)
what is the thing in Japan with vampires and cats?, i couldn't help but thinking in Tsukiyomi Moon Phase while reading Kira. (loli-vampire-girl and white cat)

LOL, i was not paying attention to the signatures...

Kunisaki Yukito is a flooging pervert. He makes a mother finger her daughter to get off his sick kicks, have two sisters paizuri his cock while slobbering all over it, and he raped another in the rain. I bet he assreamed the ghostly loli too.

That guy is a crow...

Haruka
2005-11-20, 21:05
Yeah... i know i know...
this topic was already discussed enough to makin' further replies useless...

But I still wanted to express my opinion! ;P

Let's say that you have a picture sized 800*600...
and that you instead have a monitor 1600*1200...

You'll probably say: 'this image is too 'tiny' to fit my HUMONGOUS desktop'; still grinning at the wise choice of your newly acquired 21'' plasma flat-panel ...obviously linked to a sat-tv receiver... xP

I have to give you bad news though...

The image will fit perfectly into your desktop even if stretched from its original size, and w/out using any kind of picture editor sw, but simply using the controls in the 'Desktop' settings tab of your monitor properties...

why u ask?

that's really simple! it all depends on the compression level of the source image! aka: this trick will never work out w/ a jpeg or another compressed format image!

that's the reason i've put bitmap files sized 1.4MB each one as referrals of the links in the first post!

The same images, in jpeg format, would have been about 720KB in size (using a standard compression method...), making them easier to dl...
on the other hand, though, a loss of 50% in quality would have happen'd!!!

Why you ask again?

'cuz the image compression simply removes unnecessary informations from the original image, fusing small pixels into larger squared boxes. This way, the number of dot to be drawed reduces, also lowering the size and the quality-of-details of the image itself...

and if that shouldn't be enough to satisfy your growing curiousity, here's a wonderful trick that applies also to your wonderful compressed images!

Ever heard 'bout 'gaussian blur'?

It's a common function included nowadays in all the picture editing sws, that will blur the entire image by a given coefficient!

Practical use?

To homogenously distribute color informations amongst the entire picture, removing so the annoyin' 'zig-zag' of ty objects contours that would be displayed if stretching the image...

And here's the trick:

- take the pic and save a copy: name it 'temp.*'
- delete w/ the 'eraser' tool all the contours and the background ('cuz bgs are usually really detailed) from the 'temp' pic. Be careful not to leave cozy little pixels along the way, so use a 800%+ zoom
- when you're done erasing, set the backgroud color to 'neutral' in the image properties
- when you're done setting the bg col, SAVE the 'temp' pic w/out compressing it: leave all of its format settings unchanged!
- now let's go back to the original picture: first of all save a copy and name it <img>_original.* then open the <img>.* w/ your fav editing sw
- search in the filter section the 'blur' function (or 'gaussian blur') and apply a 0.8+ blur effect to the image. (don't ever go above 2.0-2.5 though, else the image will fade)
- when you're done blurring, save the image w/out compressing it and keep the editor open: leave all of its format settings unchanged!
- now you'll only have to paste 'temp.*' over a new layer of <img>.* on top at the blurred 'full-pic' layer
- save the final image and don't further compress it nor change any other attributes: resizing it or changing its res would be a waste of time up to this point... -.-;

This is a 'localized blur effect'! You'll still have the first plane clearly visible and the more detailed background still detailed but not 'artifacted' at resizing time! Cool, ain't it? ;D

If u're still experiencencing problems on the 'first plane' subject ('cuz the source img is crappily ripped or heavily compressed) you'll only need to blur the 'temp' image: follow the sixth statement in the above checklist to apply a blur lesser in coefficient than the one used in <img>.*

Now you should've mastered the 'localized blur' effect!
Enjoy! ~

---
Just another 'terminal-case' patient...

STaNLI
2005-11-22, 00:27
The image will fit perfectly into your desktop ... simply using the controls in the 'Desktop' settings tab of your monitor properties...
yes


that's really simple! it all depends on the compression level of the source image! aka: this trick will never work out w/ a jpeg or another compressed format image!
I start getting skeptical about here


The same images, in jpeg format, would have been about 720KB in size (using a standard compression method...), making them easier to dl...
on the other hand, though, a loss of 50% in quality would have happen'd!!!
Filesize is only directly proportional to quality in raw formats; you could probably have saved as PNG (lossless compression, 100% quality) and saved that much space -- JPEG should get it to more like 100KB, and have no *visible* quality loss.


'cuz the image compression simply removes unnecessary informations from the original image
It does


fusing small pixels into larger squared boxes.
It could be said to do that, but I think not in the way you're thinking -- One should stress the removal of *unnecessary* things, eg it turns "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10" into "1 to 10" -- you still get the same information, it just takes up less space. (In the case of lossy JPEG compression it might turn "1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 10" into "1 to 10", as that looks about the same to the human eye)


And here's the trick:
You could do that, or you just could paint a fuzzy selection mask over the area you want blurred and then filter that :P


"Don't save *working* files as JPEG" is good advice, as each time you save it, it's approximations take a tiny amount of quality away; but that doesn't mean "don't use *any* compression" (lossless formats like PNG are just as detailed as BMP in half the file size), and it doesn't mean "don't save final files as JPEG" (One bit of quality loss right at the end is hardly noticable, and can save 90% of the filesize)~

Haruka
2005-11-22, 08:39
Filesize is only directly proportional to quality in raw formats; you could probably have saved as PNG (lossless compression, 100% quality) and saved that much space -- JPEG should get it to more like 100KB, and have no *visible* quality loss.

Nope... the same image i've posted in .png format is 1.1MB in size... PNG lossless compression doesn't do such miracles...


In the case of lossy JPEG compression it might turn "1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 7, 7, 9, 10" into "1 to 10", as that looks about the same to the human eye

I disagree... You'll see awful artifacts (e.g. different coloured pixels) if you take a careful look at the picture...


You could do that, or you just could paint a fuzzy selection mask over the area you want blurred and then filter that :P

Even wizarded selection masks aren't as perfect as selective user's exclusion... Anyways it should work also using a mask, you'll just have to be good at drawing it! :P


"Don't save *working* files as JPEG" is good advice, as each time you save it, it's approximations take a tiny amount of quality away; but that doesn't mean "don't use *any* compression" (lossless formats like PNG are just as detailed as BMP in half the file size), and it doesn't mean "don't save final files as JPEG" (One bit of quality loss right at the end is hardly noticable, and can save 90% of the filesize)~

Well.. take a look at the possibiity of using a .png image as picture of your desktop... you simply can't tell Windows to select that format from the monitor properties dialog...
And I really doubt that a 90% compressed jpeg is not a lossy one...

Ya know... We were speaking of stretching the final image about 200% in size from the beginning... Were u paying attention? :P


Now, back to the main topic!

Did u like the picture?
And remember... VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!

Uh..? Did I say 'vote'? @.@;;;

---
Just another 'terminal-case' patient...

Shish
2005-11-23, 00:51
ED> Sorry if this sounds grouchy; you're the third person in two days who's told me I'm wrong on technical matters, despite the numbers saying otherwise... The other guy just got an ASCII hangman with "this is me" written next to it and I refused to continue the matter; be thankful I consider you worthy of explaining to :P

On a note: I went to the trouble of SSHing home and grabbing my password to log in; I've become practiced enough at internet arguments that I know when I'll want to edit my posts to prefix them with notes like the above \o/


Nope... the same image i've posted in .png format is 1.1MB in size... PNG lossless compression doesn't do such miracles...
Are you familiar with the phrase "YOU FAIL IT"? Become so.
http://shish.is-a-geek.net/projects/shimmie/images/1ba72c6e5283c5cd977bfe63d9113fb3.png

You'll see awful artifacts (e.g. different coloured pixels) if you take a careful look at the picture...
At 1:1 zoom, using the GIMP2's jpeg export, the original at quality 90 is to me indistinguishable from the original, at 80KB. At quality 80 (60KB) there's some minor colour flattening, JPEG artefacts only show up at 70 (33KB), and that's if you're looking for them. Sure you can see that individual pixels have changed if you directly compare two zoomed in versions, but if you're looking at 1:1 and not going out of your way to look for differences, it looks fine. IMHO no noticable difference at 5% filesize is an OK tradeoff. (And no difference *at all* at 30% filesize is also OK)

Even wizarded selection masks aren't as perfect as selective user's exclusion...
On an unrelated note, SIOX > *

Anyways it should work also using a mask, you'll just have to be good at drawing it! :P
What you're doing by making a new layer and erasing bits is basically just creating a mask, but doing so in two steps; there's not much other difference :-/

Well.. take a look at the possibiity of using a .png image as picture of your desktop... you simply can't tell Windows to select that format from the monitor properties dialog...
Guh, windows fails again 9_9 Use JPEG then

And I really doubt that a 90% compressed jpeg is not a lossy one...
Lossy, but not *significantly* so

Ya know... We were speaking of stretching the final image about 200% in size from the beginning... Were u paying attention? :P
Yes, but your guide to stretching was incorrect on so many technical points I felt the need to correct some of them :P

Haruka
2005-11-23, 07:51
Yes, but your guide to stretching was incorrect on so many technical points I felt the need to correct some of them :P

Well, ya know... I'm just so disappointed that u did not wrote such a post before i did... It would have been extremely interesting and, on top of that, really educational!

Through the wikipedia, in fact, i've today realized the existence of an open-sourced-free-software named GIMP and the meaning of the SIOX acronym!

Oh man! I've still so many things to learn in this short life o' mine! ^^;;;

Please, accept my humblest apologies for such ignorance... will ya? #.#

I also hope that the guide i've written, even if technically incorrect, would be of some use to the passers-by that will read it, without confusing them though!

Extremely willing the above, I'm also asking u to post a revised tutorial on how to do the same thing, and also asking the Board Mods to permanently delete every mischievous post of mine, that would otherwise lead the user into performing unnecessary operations!

Grateful for the cooperation of both U and the Board Mods, I'll only follow the original topic from now on, 'cause the arrogance i've displayed in writing the previous two posts is to be considered as a shameful action.

I close this post here and now renewing my apologies: sorry to have troubled You and all the Ppl reading this Board.

---
Just another 'terminal-case' patient...

Talbain
2005-11-23, 17:05
They really need to find a way to vectorize raster images so they can be scaled indefinitely...

Shish
2005-11-24, 02:54
Autotrace (http://autotrace.sourceforge.net/) works well on images that are large and full of flat colour to start with; but shapes get messy as you get smaller, and any non-flatness in the colour (eg jpeg artefacts) makes thousands of tiny vectors rather than one big one :/


> Please, accept my humblest apologies for such ignorance

I don't mind people who don't know things, it's refusing to admit it and learn from mistakes that irks me~

(You're doing better than me in that respect -- My record of refusing to learn is ~8 pages over two weeks; I was arguing newtonian physics on a hard science board, back when I were the stereotypical 13 year old internet noob... On the bright side, that humbling experience has made me much more careful when discussing subjects I don't know well with people who do, so at least I've learned *something*~)

Haruka
2005-11-24, 09:48
I don't mind people who don't know things, it's refusing to admit it and learn from mistakes that irks me~

Sorry for bothering again w/ idiotic questions...

Was it: '[...] it's refusing to admit it and *to not* learn from mistakes that irks me~'?

I simply couldn't catch very well the translation. Is *to not* implicit in this case?

[...]so at least I've learned *something*[...]

Or is just that you're still mad at me?

---
Just another 'terminal-case' patient...

Shish
2005-11-25, 01:40
I simply couldn't catch very well the translation. Is *to not* implicit in this case?
Gah, English. Maths is more precise, so some brackets:

"it's refusing to (admit it and learn from mistakes) that irks me~"

Which does mean the same thing as:

"it's (refusing to admit it) and (to not learn from mistakes) that irks me~"


Or is just that you're still mad at me?
Nope :-P As said, I corrected some technical points and you learned something -- there are others who stick to their own theories no matter how many times they get proved wrong (Using my younger self as an example)

I was quite the annoying idiot myself, until people beat some sense into me -- my way of thanking them for making me a better person is to continue spreading the education ^_^