The Myth of High Resolution

Graphic artists have been fed this myth that they need to work at higher and higher pixel resolutions.  That it is vital to their work to do so.

Graphic artists are shaking their heads in agreement (with the second part, not the first). Yes, exactly. Give us more resolution. So that we can work at higher and higher resolutions.

Computer manufacturers are also shaking their heads in agreement. Yes, exactly. These people need to buy new equipment from us every year that displays at higher and higher resolutions.  They need to work with raw pixels at higher and higher resolutions.  They need to buy new stuff (from us of course).

Now we know why the hardware manufacturers are pushing this narrative.  Because they want your money.  They want you to buy new stuff every year (they would prefer every 6 months).

And computational power.  Yeah, sure.  I get that totally. Come on hardware manufacturers, give me more computational power in your systems so i can use it all for some amazing new algorithm that needs all of it and more.  Think of what we could do with that.

But more and more resolution?  And then having to actually work at that increased resolution?  Why exactly?

Graphic artists speak up in a loud voice.  But we need to work at those higher and higher resolutions so that our prints of our work look perfect in every detail. No mater if the viewer is across the room looking at it through coke bottle eye glasses, or up real close up with a loop magnifying lens (different kind of coke bottle lens) so they can see all of the details.

Yeah, i get that.  You want your digital prints to look good.  Especially when you print them wall sized in the art gallery of your dreams (i'm sure there are a few, like that place in Lahania).

Graphic artists again insist.  We need that high resolution because the stock place (substitute the magazine, ad agency, special effects house, etc) that is buying our art insists.

Sure, i totally get that.  Your final work output has to be a certain resolution or the people buying it will not pay you money for it. Absolutely, it's what the client wants.

Video artists speak up. Buddy, we needed 4K because we needed to build content to support future 4K video streaming services (even though most people watch them with a streaming bandwidth that probably doesn't even reliably support SD resolution). And now we need 8K because everyone who buys our stuff wants it archived for the future, so 4K just doesn't cut it.

Alright, i understand that even though Netflix can't even support SD streaming resolution without grinding to a halt where i live, you need to sell your content to them at 8K because that is what they want, or more likely your boss wants it at 8K so he can resell it to them later at a higher res, sure. It's all about expectations.  They have to be met.

They have to be met in the final end stage.

But working resolution?  Why does that have to be the same.

And it's fascinating to see Nvidia push this whole concept of neural net based image interpolation converting a much lower resolution real time ray-traced graphics render into a much higher resolution 4K video display frame for gamers to enjoy.

And this leads us into the whole myth of high resolution that digital artists have been fed.  Because it's only true for the final end stage.  The part where you put together whatever final thing you are blasting off to the client, or to the ink jet printing place, or the Netflix streaming vault, etc.

But working resolution.  Why does that have to be high res?

But edges have to be sharp. I need to zoom way, way, way, way in to make sure that is true.

Sure, edges have to be sharp. If you want them to be.  But that zoom way, way, way in part, just to check, just to make sure? While you are working on design, on composition, on the structure?  That part seems odd.

Especially if it then requires you to work with order of magnitude or more more raw pixel information when you are doing your compositional work.  Every time you double the canvas dimensions, you 4X the amount of data.  You 4X the cpu power required, you 4X the bandwidth required, you 4X the slowdown in response time of the system.  That adds up real fast, exponentially fast.

And i'm arguing that it is totally unnecessary for the compositional part of your work. It's only an essential requirement for your final output.

Nvidia totally gets this. That is why they are restructuring the entire graphics pipeline of computer game real time graphics display to take advantage of it.

Synthetik gets it as well. We want to structure our working environment for digital artists so that they can separate the concept of interactively (or automatically, or intelligent assisted, etc) building the digital art content from the totally separate super high resolution output they might require for the final stage of their work.

Are we totally there yet in Studio Artist V5.5? No, not yet. For some things (vector effect output), sure. And we have ideas to make that more explicit for those things (like the Vectorizer) in the near term future, to aid you in this rethink of what working resolution actually means.

For other effects, re-rendering your Paint Action Sequence (PASeq) might be a way to go. Raster paint nibs on a vector bezier path, Studio Artist has offered that since V1. For some paint effects it works great, for others, not so great.  It can at times works like an edition print (subtle or not so subtle differences in output from run to run), which could be cool when viewed in a certain light, but could be frustrating in others.

So we have other plans for future but already in development internally here at Synthetik Studio Artist V6. To cover the other work scenarios with some really cool options (think all things raster in nature).

Here's the thing.  If you look at the contrast sensitivity function of the human visual system, there is a pronounced drop off at higher visual spatial frequencies.  And algorithms for digital halftoning and for image compression have taken advantage of this fact for many years, depend on it for them to work at all. Place the error generated by the system at spatial frequencies where the viewer can't perceive it.

So when you are building up the composition and structure of your digital art, that information has very little if anything to do with it's perception. Not until you get up real, real, real close, so close you are now looking at that sharp edge like it is it's own digital art canvas, one that really has nothing really  to do with the perception of the overall work of digital art (the composition, the structure, etc).

So if you can't really even see that information when you are building up the overall structure of your piece of digital art, why would you want it to get in the way of that important creative design work by hogging 4X x 4x x 4X ad infinitum of the cpu and memory bandwidth?

Something to think about.