singy
asked on
multi image-image
I've seen quite a few images used in advertisements that have a picture of a
face. this face though is made up of 1000s of other different faces. Does
any one know what piece of software is used to create this effect? British
Telecom use one of E.T. in ads in the UK
Singy
face. this face though is made up of 1000s of other different faces. Does
any one know what piece of software is used to create this effect? British
Telecom use one of E.T. in ads in the UK
Singy
http://www.futurememories.com/futurememories/w103.html
ASKER
Yeah, that's the sort of thing.
I need to do it with all my own little images though. I can purchase the software that does it.
It can't surely be done by hand... can it?
I need to do it with all my own little images though. I can purchase the software that does it.
It can't surely be done by hand... can it?
It probably WAS done by hand... or at least by computer. Any good photo program (Adobe Photoshop or Corel PhotoPaint) will probably work, but you'd better have a ton of RAM...
ASKER
No. I don't believe that.
It would take ages, how can the bloke at the URL charge only $140. It has to be a software package or a plug-in. It is quite similar to the Patchwork filter in Photoshop only instead of a block of tone, an image of a similar tone is used. I have started to see so many of these hanging around. There must be something about.
Singy
It would take ages, how can the bloke at the URL charge only $140. It has to be a software package or a plug-in. It is quite similar to the Patchwork filter in Photoshop only instead of a block of tone, an image of a similar tone is used. I have started to see so many of these hanging around. There must be something about.
Singy
Write them and ask... *grin*
ASKER
cheeky, but I might just give it a go
*chuckling*... Yeah, well... somebody's gotta do it... *grin*
i read this post and tried to do this myself .. i managed to get it done at a rather low resolution, because doing this effect in hires takes MUCH ram .. or much time .. anyways its really easy .. i did the following: i got myself a pic of some ps2 chick. i resampled it to 100x80 pixels. now
i made a copy of that and resized that copy to 25x20 pixels. now i made a new pic, beeing 100x25 pixels wide and 80x20 pixels high ... this would make ever pixel of my 100x80 map map onto one of the copies of my 25x20 pic. i selected the 25x20 copy as pattern, filled the 2500x1600 pic with it, so it was filled with 100x80 copies of the small pic .. then i sized the 100x80 picture to 2500x1600 and copied that as a second layer into the 2500x1600 picture .. then i selected "multiply" as layer function for this layer .. and boom it was done .. doing this in print resolution takes some time (swapping) but is possible ... its just a bit of calculating ... if you want the psd, mail me at f_bohmann@vcc.de ... :)
i made a copy of that and resized that copy to 25x20 pixels. now i made a new pic, beeing 100x25 pixels wide and 80x20 pixels high ... this would make ever pixel of my 100x80 map map onto one of the copies of my 25x20 pic. i selected the 25x20 copy as pattern, filled the 2500x1600 pic with it, so it was filled with 100x80 copies of the small pic .. then i sized the 100x80 picture to 2500x1600 and copied that as a second layer into the 2500x1600 picture .. then i selected "multiply" as layer function for this layer .. and boom it was done .. doing this in print resolution takes some time (swapping) but is possible ... its just a bit of calculating ... if you want the psd, mail me at f_bohmann@vcc.de ... :)
sir_yoda changed the proposed answer to a comment
sorry ... i did not get that you wanted to do this with seperate little pictures ... i guess then it would only help to write a little program for that ... not much of a deal thou ...
People do incredible things. Those images are all done by hand. Thats why an artist is an artist and a non-artist pays big money for their work..heh...If a machine could spit one of those out they wouldnt be *wow* would they? Its kinda like the great wall of china....If they had used cranes and concrete blocks it wouldnt be as amazing.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
After much searching the Net i've found quite a few bits of software that will do this.
there is one here that offers a free trial download
http://ambersoftworks.com/pictureimage.htm
These images are not all done by hand. A piece of software does it. As for weed's comments. Being an 'Artist' isn't dependent on what tool is used. A computer is as valid as a brush or a pencil. Artistry comes from the artist whatever medium is chosen. Mass produced artwork from the likes of Warhol where he didn't really have anything to do with producing the pieces still sell for huge amounts.
As for the answer I'm awarding the points to forkbeard as I'm now on the trail. I'm sure I'll be able to find a solid proffesional bit of kit that will allow me to produce print quality work
Cheers
Singy
there is one here that offers a free trial download
http://ambersoftworks.com/pictureimage.htm
These images are not all done by hand. A piece of software does it. As for weed's comments. Being an 'Artist' isn't dependent on what tool is used. A computer is as valid as a brush or a pencil. Artistry comes from the artist whatever medium is chosen. Mass produced artwork from the likes of Warhol where he didn't really have anything to do with producing the pieces still sell for huge amounts.
As for the answer I'm awarding the points to forkbeard as I'm now on the trail. I'm sure I'll be able to find a solid proffesional bit of kit that will allow me to produce print quality work
Cheers
Singy
True but theres certainly something to be said for the artist who has the patience and perseverence to do it the hard way.
A similar debate is made regarding filters in Photoshop. Many of them are over used and just look like a cheap digital trick. Then there are others that when used with a little taste and style can look incredible.
Doing something the "hard way" or the "old school way" is worth something until technology catches up and can produce quality that rivals the artists and craftsman of the world. Quite often using the computer can produce sterile and cold-looking results. Going back in and tweaking images or making adjustments to add to the feel of the product is where the artist really shows their worth. Taking something common that everybody has seen before and turning it into something different is the core role of the artist. Whether you use a computer, acrylic paint, or silly putty... it is the end result that really matters.
Technology is moving so fast to turn your back on new innovations will only hurt yourself later. I imagine when Adobe tried to market Photoshop 1.0 they were met w/ resistance by photographers who and looked down at the new digital features. Fast forward a decade later and its difficult to find a photographer who hasn't used Photoshop.
Like I mentioned earlier, I have never used one of these new programs that claim to make professional Photo Mosaic's. The results may look pretty awful but don't overlook them. In a few years they may wind up impressing everyone. I, for one, am getting tired of them already, and look forward for the next new thing.
Sorry for the ranting and I will now step down from my soapbox,
forkbeard
Doing something the "hard way" or the "old school way" is worth something until technology catches up and can produce quality that rivals the artists and craftsman of the world. Quite often using the computer can produce sterile and cold-looking results. Going back in and tweaking images or making adjustments to add to the feel of the product is where the artist really shows their worth. Taking something common that everybody has seen before and turning it into something different is the core role of the artist. Whether you use a computer, acrylic paint, or silly putty... it is the end result that really matters.
Technology is moving so fast to turn your back on new innovations will only hurt yourself later. I imagine when Adobe tried to market Photoshop 1.0 they were met w/ resistance by photographers who and looked down at the new digital features. Fast forward a decade later and its difficult to find a photographer who hasn't used Photoshop.
Like I mentioned earlier, I have never used one of these new programs that claim to make professional Photo Mosaic's. The results may look pretty awful but don't overlook them. In a few years they may wind up impressing everyone. I, for one, am getting tired of them already, and look forward for the next new thing.
Sorry for the ranting and I will now step down from my soapbox,
forkbeard
ASKER
I agree totaly. the artistry comes when using say, photoshop filters and getting a great and maybe understated result. It is and has always been the use of tools by an artist, not the tools used.
Singy
Singy
ASKER
Oh, by the way, I used the tool I found at
http://ambersoftworks.com/pictureimage.htm
and got pretty good results. The demo version only alows you to use 25 tile images, I'd imagine the more images used the better the result would be. I agree that the images produced are a little stayed, but we live in a commercial environment and if one of my clients wants to pay me to produce a piece like this for an advert theyre running, then who am I to kick the gift horse in the mouth...
.... so to speak
Singy
http://ambersoftworks.com/pictureimage.htm
and got pretty good results. The demo version only alows you to use 25 tile images, I'd imagine the more images used the better the result would be. I agree that the images produced are a little stayed, but we live in a commercial environment and if one of my clients wants to pay me to produce a piece like this for an advert theyre running, then who am I to kick the gift horse in the mouth...
.... so to speak
Singy
*chuckle*... so put together 25 images, save it... then put together another 25 images, attach it to the first 25, and save it... then put together another 25 images, attach it to the....
ASKER
*LOL* it's less than $50 though i think I'll support the developers.