Which count would be appropriate?

[Aesandre]

*deleted*

[richardandtracy]

I almost think you should be asking questions in addition to the count at the same time. These are:

1. How big do you want it?
2. Where is it likely to be displayed?
3. How long do you want to spend on it?

For really good detail 28+ count is good, but takes an incredible time. 18 count is good enough to see reasonable detail at a range of 3ft+ (90cm).

I have done a pair of eyes (my 'I'm watching you' image) at 25 count. That was 8000 stitches or so, and it gives really good detail. The viewing distance is less than 60cm (2ft) to see the stitches in that.

The image you linked to is 940 pixels wide. Without reducing it in size, at 28 ct, that comes in at 33" wide, and half a million stitches. Gaah!
I have averaged 50000 stitches a year for the last 5 years. So that project will come in at 10 years worth.

A 20" wide project at say 18ct will come in at 360 x 206 pixels, or 74000 stitches, which is still not insignificant. Wonder if a physical size indicator in the image conversion would be useful.

I had planned to do a bit more work before another program update... but I have added a mockup view to the program that might be useful to you. The mockup tries to draw a version of the picture on screen so that it appears full size with the correct fabric colour, and the stitches drawn with individual lines representing the individual stitches at as close to full size as I can manage (4 lines are used for a cross, two darker shadow lines and two lines at thread colour). Would you find this useful to you? If so, I'll try to upload it tomorrow evening (UK time) - I'm on the wrong computer at the moment so cannot upload it just now (and I want to double check that it really does work properly).

Regards,

Richard

[Allyn]

In addition to what Richard said......

I wouldn't worry about doing blended threads on that image. There is no subtle shading that would benefit from the expanded palette. The existing palette of solid colors will handle that image just fine. I reduced the color count on the image to 256 and there was no real change in the image. I'd probably go to 80 or 100 colors.

If I were doing that conversion, I'd resize the image so the pixel count is as low as possible but that still has the level of detail you want and also consider if you want to backstitch or if you want the outlines to be stitches. If you're willing to backstitch, the image can be smaller. There's also some lossy compression in the image that could be left, but I'd clean it up before converting it.

Once you decide what pixel count keeps the details you want to see, then you can decide what fabric count will give you the physical size of the finished project you want. Fabric count doesn't determine the level of details. Stitch count determines details; from there fabric count determines finished size.

Now, after all that's said, if you want to keep the details just as they are and not change the pixel count, import the image and tell it to convert to 32-count, over-1 with 100 colors and see if that works for you. 940 stitches wide over-1 on 32 count will make the finished piece about 73 cm wide. You'll have to decide if you want to do it 1-over-1 and do full crosses or do 2-over-1 and tent stitch it.

[Serinde]

The picture is a fun, comic seaside postcard of a piece. If anything was crying out for 14ct, it's this. But. It would be huge! So that's a non-starter.

As the others have said, a lot depends on how long you want to work on this, and all the other details. Using backstitch in a number of colours would be really helpful.

I presume you've cleared using this image with Weymouth Sealife Adventure Park...?

[richardandtracy]

Possibly consider both Allyn's and Serinde's suggestions. 14ct, no blends and no more than 80 colours. Could be quite fun.

Regards,

Richard.

[Reta]

"I presume you've cleared using this image with Weymouth Sealife Adventure Park...?"

I was thinking that as well

[richardandtracy]

I looked into the copyright situation in the UK in Dec 2014, and posted this in the 'Copyright' thread in the SAL forum, which is about as clear as it is possible to make the rather obscure legislation:

In the UK copyright law was amended in 2014, in Statutory Instrument SI2014/2361 "COPYRIGHT: RIGHTS IN PERFORMANCES: The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014" to say:

The making of a copy of a work, other than a computer program, by an individual
does not infringe copyright in the work provided that the copy—
(a) is a copy of—
(i) the individual’s own copy of the work, or
(ii) a personal copy of the work made by the individual,
(b) is made for the individual’s private use, and
(c) is made for ends which are neither directly nor indirectly commercial.

A link to the legislation is below so you can see the full text:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014 ... 361_en.pdf and the original Act of Parliament it affects (the Copyright & Patents Act, 1988): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/enacted
This legislation came into force on 1 October 2014. It isn't a fascinating read, but does clarify the situation for UK residents. It should be noted that this right to copy applies to UK residents regardless of whether the copyright holder is based in the UK or not. As usual, the title (mentioning 'Performances') is entirely misleading & maintains Westminster's position as the most obtuse and confusing legislature on the planet.

It seems to me that making a copy of an image is permitted so long as it's for your personal use. Gifting that personally made copy of the image - without payment - is probably OK, as the copy was originally made by you for your personal use, though not explicitly permitted (I am not legally trained, just read the legislation and put a normal person's interpretation on it). Making money from the image is definitely prohibited without permission.

Putting the legal position to one side, I would strongly advocate you getting permission - if you get it (and many places will give it happily), then there is no possibility of anyone claiming you have done wrong, and the copyright holder tends to be quite pleased and intrigued by the idea.

Regards,

Richard.

[Serinde]

Seems like we go through the whole copyright thing at regular intervals, but you are correct Richard: just ask permission! Simple and no guessing.

[richardandtracy]

Program updated to show a mockup and the converted image size, as described in this post: http://www.crossstitchforum.com/viewtop ... 68#p650968

Regards,

Richard

[Aesandre]

Hi all, thanks for your comments, don't have much time at the minute for a longer reply so will do so tomorrow...

But just to clarify, obtaining permission from the Sealife people was the first thing I did, and I received confirmation that it was okay by e mail I wouldn't dare attempt to chart it otherwise.

Regards

Aesandre

[SteveM]

I've been playing around with this image and to make it about the size of your typical HAED pattern it needs to be scaled down to about 500x287 which is one quarter the detail of the original image. That's a pretty big impact to the amount of detail, but puts you down to about 140k stitches instead of a half million.

I'd be interested to know what tool you used for your Wizard City pattern and what about it makes you decide not to use it now. I find that Pattern Maker does a pretty good job with images like this one as it is bright with no dark areas. As you found out on your HAED Egyptian Palace pattern, areas that should be dark green tend to become black when PM is used. Where I find PM tends to shine best is around 50-150 colours. Any more than that and the returns diminish greatly. Where I find Richard's program starts to outdo PM is in images with dark areas and any time you need a greater level shading and higher colour counts for more faithful image reproduction.

Blending of threads doesn't seem to help much as Allyn mentioned so if you stay with solids you'll have the option of doing 1 over 1 full crosses on 25 count fabric versus the 2 over 1 that you've done in the past. The floss goes twice as far and the number of stitches that you can complete in an hour will go up. Of course tenting 2 over 1 on 25 and 28 count fabric are faster options too. Test stitching will help you decide which to use and Richard's new mock-up feature will help to show the differences.

[Aesandre]

Hi everyone,

Really appreciate your comments, and will try to reply to them in order:

Richard - I'd like it to be certainly less than a metre long, I'm not sure where my friend intends to hang it, and I'd like to have it completed in a couple of years if possible. Half a million stitches?! Eeeee! I am afraid as far as pixels and sizes go, I am mathematically baffled. Numbers in general confuse me

Allyn - glad I don't have to worry about blended colours. I've never done a blended project before and I wasn't looking forward to the extra time sorting them all out! Your advice on fabric count and stitch count was really helpful, thanks. I always assumed fabric count was the determining factor in detail. I wouldn't mind backstitching, I think that would help bring out the details, but I'm not sure how to figure that out on Richard's awesome software. I'm afraid once my brain sees numbers it tends to scream and shut down

Serinde - yes, I have cleared it with the Sealife people, they seemed quite pleased someone was inspired by the image

Richard - the 14 count would be nearly 2 metres long! That's definitely out, lol.

Steve - for the Wizard City project I enlisted the help of Skitzzzzz, who made an awesome chart for me. I started this thread on the off-chance that she was unable to help me, but she has thankfully got back to me I like the sound of stitching faster! I do agree that 1 over 1 is fine for a 25 count, something I learned from the Egyptian Temple! I still have a bias against tent stitching though, but that's just me.

Finally - Richard, even though I'm not very good at computer software/numbers etc I can recognise that you've made a truly astounding programme here. Well done, sir.

[richardandtracy]

Aesandre,

Thanks for the comments about the program, greatly appreciated.

I have had a couple of similar queries about the size of an image when doing a conversion, so I decided to try to help out with the latest version. In the latest version, in the threads conversion routine I have added a little box that allows you to select the desired fabric count, and based on the number of pixels entered for the picture size, it tells you the finished picture size, as outlined in red below:

If you change the count, the finished size changes, and you can play with each to get the size you want.

Regards,

Richard.

[Aesandre]

That is incredibly handy, thanks! I shall play around with it in the next couple of days.

EDIT:

Thanks everyone for your advice. Much as I'd like to, it's probably not a good idea for me to tackle a piece of this complexity at the moment (job, uni work, previous commitment to other friend's piece...). I was being a bit ambitious. May revisit the idea a bit later down the road.

Thanks again.