So I'm cautiously starting trying to vectorize a backglass for CPR.    No committment yet - CPR indicate its a tough one due to the spot/half-toning they did.   A few months ago I didn't understand what they meant, but now I'm slowly learning.

A bit of a follow on on Fantastic's post, but with backglasses.   I figure if someones vectorized a playfield they would have had these difficulties (i.e, the Cyclone playfield).   I'm running into lots of problems in terms of vectorizing the whole backglass.  

So far, I've got a Cruse scan - and touched up the majority of the backglass - focusing mainly on the black.   I'm using Corel Paint Shop Pro.   My challenge is memory limitations within Corel PSP, and then using it Corel Draw to vectorize it.   It seems PSP/Draw can only work with a fraction of a backglass (even @ 300dpi), and the tracing programs are very poor are doing any dots/splatter patterns.

I was hoping to clean up the colors (flaking / chips) in PSP then import as a bitmap layer to the Corel Draw.   Then use Corel Power Trace to get 90% of the way there with the vectors.   The problem is the tracing does not do well with the dots in the artwork at all.   So, I think I'm going to have to individually trace each dots - and there's 1,000's.  

I'm not giving up - I have all winter - and am looking at learning about either clones, symbols or some visual basic script to complete this.

Any ideas on good approaches for this?   I've posted on the Corel forum for some aspects, the link is below:
http://coreldraw.com/forums/t/16998.aspx

I had (have) the same problem with vectorizing some plastic scans. In my case it's not halftone but a lot of irregular speckles. I tried a number of different tracing programs and the one which did the best job is a free drawing app called Inkscape.

the best advice I could give you is... STAY AWAY FROM COREL PRODUCTS.

Use Illustrator.  

Corel nasty.. NASTY dirty icky.

Excuse me while I go wash my hands for typing the name.  

There's no way I could afford Adobe products...       No students/teachers in the house either to qualify for discounts...   Corel seems good, but I find it pretty lame to not work in 30" * 30" piece of art at 300dpi.     Running out of memory/crashing on that seems so 80's...

Quoted from machine.slave

the best advice I could give you is... STAY AWAY FROM COREL PRODUCTS.

I don't agree with that. It depends what you can afford and what you use it for.

I use primarily use Adobe CS3 products for all my final output but I find CorelDraw's vector bezier node controls easier to use and more intuitive for initial logo work. I also like using Draw's realtime type preview for quickly compiling type choices. I actually find the Trace Bitmap in Flash yields pretty decent results for bitmap to vector conversions.  

If you're on a tight budget and not doing anything professional, CorelDraw is a decent package, imho. If you're patient Corel has great deals as well. I bought CorelDraw X4 for $315 (not including tax) and a Wacom Intuos4 tablet w/ Painter 11 for $485 (not including tax). Be sure to look for coupons first; they're out there.

Quoted from Tuborg

There's no way I could afford Adobe products...       No students/teachers in the house either to qualify for discounts...   Corel seems good, but I find it pretty lame to not work in 30" * 30" piece of art at 300dpi.     Running out of memory/crashing on that seems so 80's...

Don't fight it, just work in quadrants then combine the vectors together afterwords. I'm sure you're working zoomed in anyway.

Depends on your system as well but ensure your computer is clean of any viruses and/or don't combine too many anti-virus programs either.

Otto:  To each their own, I guess..    I just can't stand Corel.. one of the reasons being that it's a memory pig.  That being said, I haven't used a Corel product in about 10 years so I suppose they may have gotten better since then.

Tuborg:  Try working with the scan at 50% original size, 300 DPI.. or even 25% original size.  It'll be a lot less of a strain on the system, and because your final image will be a vector drawing you can blow it up to 100% when you're done with zero loss (hell, you could blow that sucker up to 10,000% if you wanted).  

Also, how much RAM are you using and what OS?  When working with large images, RAM and page file size are key

Quoted from machine.slave

Otto:  To each their own, I guess..    I just can't stand Corel.. one of the reasons being that it's a memory pig.  That being said, I haven't used a Corel product in about 10 years so I suppose they may have gotten better since then.

I think I still have a box of CorelDraw 3 (or 4)  3.5" floppies.

Quoted from machine.slave

Tuborg:  Try working with the scan at 50% original size, 300 DPI.. or even 25% original size.  It'll be a lot less of a strain on the system, and because your final image will be a vector drawing you can blow it up to 100% when you're done with zero loss (hell, you could blow that sucker up to 10,000% if you wanted).  

Hmmm.   I guess to preserve the same detail, I could work on the original size, but lower the DPI.   The original scan is 200dpi - so lowering to 100dpi would effectively change the size.   I found the detail was hard to capture when working at that level.   I actually oversampled from the 200dpi to 300dpi so I would have more detail in terms of the shapes for the whiskers / leaves / dots / etc.     With the 200dpi - the dots were just 4-square pixels with no shape.

Quoted from machine.slave

Also, how much RAM are you using and what OS?  When working with large images, RAM and page file size are key

Its a fairly good system:
Intel E7400 (2.5 or so GHz Duo Core)
Good graphics card - Nvidia 8800GS  -  does Corel draw make use of a graphics card?
4GB ram
4GB virtual page file - on a separate drive

Would going to 64-bit help?   Or do I just need to learn how to partition the backglass into 9, 18, 36 (grid-style) files and stitch together?

Quoted from OTTOgd

Don't fight it, just work in quadrants then combine the vectors together afterwords. I'm sure you're working zoomed in anyway.

When you say "work in quadrants" is there a method / mechansim to split the large file (72MB) into say 9-files and combine them later when completed?  

Wait a second, I'm confused.....

People actually pay for software???!!

Quoted from Tuborg

When you say "work in quadrants" is there a method / mechansim to split the large file (72MB) into say 9-files and combine them later when completed?  

Yes, divide the original scan into sections using guide lines, Copy and create a new, smaller file to work with. I don't know if PSP can do that but I would think so. If you have difficulties you could send me the file via ftp and I'll cut it up for you. Wouldn't take long for me to do at all.

Quoted from Tuborg

When you say "work in quadrants" is there a method / mechansim to split the large file (72MB) into say 9-files and combine them later when completed?  

Someone needs remedial math..  QUADrant..  as in 4???  lol   jk...  

Mike

Quoted from Tuborg

Hmmm.   I guess to preserve the same detail, I could work on the original size, but lower the DPI.   The original scan is 200dpi - so lowering to 100dpi would effectively change the size.   I found the detail was hard to capture when working at that level.   I actually oversampled from the 200dpi to 300dpi so I would have more detail in terms of the shapes for the whiskers / leaves / dots / etc.     With the 200dpi - the dots were just 4-square pixels with no shape.

Actually oversampling from 200dpi to 300dpi isn't the best idea, because all it does is blur the existing pixels to fill the gaps.  What I was saying was to drop the image size down by 50%, not the DPI.  Leave the DPI at 300.. basically you're re-sampling it.  You won't lose any detail, you'll just have a smaller image to work with (but the same amount of pixels) which means you'll have to zoom in closer.  It should drop your memory usage right down.. hope that makes sense.

although you're working with a fairly powerful PC there.. probably the equivalent to my Mac here at work.

Also avoid using JPEG compression.  It's not loss-less, you'll see some artifacting which could mess up your work.  Also, the image is uncompressed by the software when you're working with it anyway, so it doesn't save you any trouble.  Use uncompressed TIFF or EPS files instead.

Hope all that helps!

Yup - it definitely helps.   Thanks.  

I'll play some more tonight with breaking this down.   I basically have an almost perfect bitmap image now in PSP.    That is, I've corrected all the flaking / scratches.   And I believe my black is "pixel" perfect or close to it.    I'm willing to start all over again - as each time I'm learning more.   I believe, by the CPR tutorial, you just touch-up in bitmap the black.   The other colors are traced in the vector program.

As far as  the other colors in the bitmaps go, there's still color-distortion due to some paint lifting off so the scanner picks that up as a different color.   Using the magic-wand/color-change is not possible except in small, small steps.   But with this bitmap, I'm ready I believe for the next steps of isolating the colors and vectorizing.

OTTOgd, I may take you up on your offer, but I'll see if those commands exist in Corel PSP.   Once broken-up, is there similar commands/techniques to re-join them.

MrMikeman.   Yup.  Circle, Triangle, Square are about as complicated as I get.   Quadrant is any grid pattern to me     And I did well in math.  English is where I struggled.