Tiling without seeing borders

[swfirefi]

Hi, I'm new here and have done a search before posting this. I don't see my answer. I'm creating a large, 8'x8' display. I want to use a background that requires tiling due to image resolution/file sizes. I downloaded an image from iStock that I want to use. It's got a maximum display size of something like 17 inches tall by 14 inches wide, not sure exactly, but it can't be used by itself. If I resize the image to fit the display it's all pixelated. How do I do it to get rid of the fine lines of the borders so they don't show? I'm told that in photoshop there is a "spot healing brush tool" that can be used to smooth out those lines to make them disappear.  Here is a link to a photo showing what I mean. It took a while to load but it will load: http://swfirefightingfoam.com/foam-tiling.png

Thank you! Great program...

[brynn]

Welcome to the forum!

Yes, that line that looks like a border is actually a thin transparent area.  It's common to almost all (if not all) graphics software or image viewers.  Inkscape has a few ways to deal with that, but it's hard to suggest which one might be best for you, because I don't know exactly what your workflow is.  I guess most graphics programs have ways to deal with that, since it's a common problem.  But I'm not familiar with Photoshop, so I can't really comments on that tool.

Is that really an 8 foot square display?  Does that mean you'll be making something like a banner to hang on a wall or business, maybe?  Or else can you explain more about how you will be using Inkscape?  Unless 8' is a typo, I guess you won't be using html to do the tiling (like for a webpage)?

Also I have a question about the image at the link you provided.  It doesn't look like something that will tile nicely.  Well, I mean it will tile just fine, but it might not look like what you expect.    Maybe you didn't copy the right image or something?

Well anyway, here's an FAQ which gives all the options available.  If you'd rather not explain more about your project, maybe you can decide from this info, which would be best for you.   https://inkscape.org/en/learn/faq/#theres-seam-or-artifact-between-adjacent-objects-sharing-same-border-or-between-patterns

With that particular image, I think the overlap option (where tiles are overlapped by 1 or 2 px) probably won't work.  That option would work better where the image is a solid color, or almost solid.  I guess it can't hurt to try it though, because overlapping the tiles is often the best solution.

Anyway if you have questions, feel free to ask 

[Lazur]

In addition by captain obvious:
First, you need a seamless pattern as a base for your seamless pattern.

That raster image is not seamlessly tileable. By using four copies mirrored and arranged as at the bottom part of the image, you can create a seamless image -although that mirror effect looks rather sloppy.
Anyway, this part of the job is better suited by a raster editor. If that flipped method is acceptable, you can even achieve that by using mspaint.

After that, once imported the raster image into inkscape, convert it to a pattern fill.
Then it shouldn't render any gaps in between the "tiles".
Simply add this pattern fill to a larger object in the background.

It should be that simple, however problems rendering errors may occour when saving your work as pdf for printing.
Needs testing, and it is suggested not to have an alpha channel in your base raster image or a fancy colour profile. 

[swfirefi]

Yes, it's for an 8ft. x 8 ft. display. First time I've had to create a graphic at this scale and it has been quite a learning process! 
I think I made an acceptable backgroud, it's hard to say. Not sure what it's going to look like all blown up. Has text all over it so it should be okay.

Can you tell me what dpi are we creating in by default? Is it 96?  How would I set the resolution on my graphics to 300 dpi? 

Thank you both for your input...

[brynn]

Oh gosh!  Dpi and resolution confuse me terribly.  Yes, for Inkscape versions 0.92 and higher, the dpi is 96.

Someone else will have to answer how to change the dpi of your image.  I assume you're going ultimately print it, because 8 feet square won't fit on a computer screen!

I think you would use File menu > Export PNG.  There you can change the DPI.  Note that when you do that the image will get much bigger.  Don't worry.  When you print it (or I assume you'll have it printed, like on a banner or something) the printers will set the size.  Then it will end up being the right size and the right dpi.

I'm pretty sure that's right, but someone else should confirm that.

[swfirefi]

Yes, this whole vector and rastor thing has me confused as well - and dpi and resolution, too!  Glad to know I'm not the only one.  I had submitted it several times and it came out okay until the last one where I actually edited the pdf and resubmitted. Looks like I will probably start over and re-create the whole .svg file again.  Like I said, a definite learining curve. I'm used to doing everything low res for the internet so this is different.  I found that Inkscape does create images at 96 dpi, better than for the internet but not sufficient for these large format jobs. I took an image I had made in Inkscape and imported it into Preview for Mac where I increased the dpi. I'm now waiting for it to upload to see if that did it. If I don't report back it means it worked, otherwise I will let you know.
Again, Thanks!

[Lazur]

Hi.

Dpi shouldn't be that confusing at all.

Resolution=linking your document units to a physical distance value, base unit.
Inkscape works -or, rather- is hard-wired to 96 dpi. If you zoom in to 100% zoom level, you will see your work on screen exactly as exported at 96 dpi. That alone has nothing to do with the output options besides 96 being the default export resolution.

Note, it doesn't mean any other physical given distances would appear in their true scale by default on screen then even when at 100% zooming. Cause of this is your computer screen can display a fix amount of pixels on a fixed size, which can be anything. 96 dpi was chosen by the css workgroup (?) because it's close to the current regular screen resolution I guess.
Previous inkscape version was running at 90 dpi, while illustrator works at 72 dpi.

There is a slider in the preferences you can adjust your 100% zoom to display at your true screen resolution, so that objects would appear at their given physical sizes on screen.
Didn't had much luck with that myself though and it's only side related.

Dpi determines the dot/pixel density of your drawing. For printing text, 300 dpi is suggested, and 600 dpi for photographs.
(Latter needs a decent coated photopaper otherwise the ink would smudge and the print won't appear as sharp as the provided digital raster image.)
Note, that it's advised for printing readable books, which is read in a small distance.
Depending how far your banner will be looked at, you wouldn't need such a "large" resolution.

(Since the regular screen displays are hardly of the "retina display" quality, working at 100% is mostly impossible.)


The other thing to consider with the banner is, pdf printing. That way you can preserve all the vector content -no need of rasterizing *hopefully*-  and your printer can print in the intended scale/physical unitse, i.e. 8ft. x 8 ft.

Filters are not supported by the pdf format, which makes them necessary to be rasterized for preserving their look.
Filters can be for example custom blending modes, blurs, drop shadows etc. Rasterizing them with the same as pdf dialog will render a raster double of those filtered objects at the given resolution.
BUT, raster images are heavy. Very heavy; double the size, four times more the number of pixels stored will be.
Currently a 10000px/10000px is quite laggy on my machine, larger raster images can melt your cpu away. Or the rip of the printer you print with. Even if you manage to save a large raster image the printer might give up on it.

All in all, you must keep the raster images size at a reasonable resolution.
6/6 ft=72/72 inch, which at 300 dpi would end up 21600/21600 px -would hardly work.
Same applies to embedded raster images. Adjust their size to the distance they'll be looked at.
Two times the distance of reading (2*15-25 inches?)->150 dpi is enough.

On the other hand if your embedded raster image is not large enough -in px size-, printing it in a too large size can reveal it's pixels.


Aside from these such a foam pattern may not work well from other aspects either.
Colour matching would need to be spot on -a cheaper printer may end up interpreting the neutral grey colour as a shade of green. Or yellow. Or anything in between cyan and magenta. Needs testing, needs proofing with the right material. Consult your printer.

It's not a good choice graphic design-wise either as it makes your text less legible.

Hope these make sense. Quite sleepy at the moment although could look up a dozen posts of the same problem.

To sum it up:
-consult your printer of the materials, printing method used, format requirements of the deliverables;
don't try to prepress, it should be their job. Colour can look different on your screen and on paper, ask for proof prints.
-Use pdf as your final print format.
-Make it simple, loose the unnecessary fancyness. Graphic design takes way more to learn than learning how to use a program.