Skip navigation

Illustrator

Currently Being Moderated

chunky gaussian blur results

Mar 4, 2013 4:42 PM

can anyone explain how not to get chunky blur results in Illustrator? the screengrab shows what I mean...in the blurred portion, you can clearly see square "chunks" like maybe that's the best resolution it could do...matters not even if I scale up the art to be blurred...

thank you!

570 Views 21 Replies Latest reply: MikeWenzloff, Mar 4, 2013 8:41 PM

Replies

Currently Being Moderated

1. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 5:46 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

what is your zoom level in the screen grab? what you are seeing, I think, is perfectly normal for your zoom level. it is a bitmap effect and should print perfectly fine.

mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

2. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 5:48 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

zoom level is Actual Size.

Great if it prints well, but first and foremost, this is meant for the small screen...in cases like this, should I send all blur jobs to Photoshop only?

Then...pull them into Illustrator for composition with vector elements?

thank you!

w

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

3. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 6:20 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

Is pixel preview on? Overprint preview on or off?

Mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

4. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 6:22 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

it is off. "On" intensifies the problem.

thank you,

w

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

5. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 6:24 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

Here are a few screen shots of varying zoom from 100 to 800 percent. Overprint preview and pixel preview are off.

Mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

6. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 6:24 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

How about overprint preview?

Mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

7. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 6:26 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

also off...

your sample links show beautiful, delicate results of the type I'm after...is your art large?....large enough so that the chunkyness can't be seen?

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

8. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 6:27 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

Argh. What is your document raster effects settings? Mine, because I work on relatively smaller images, is set to 300 dpi.

This doesn't effect output to PDF or image file types. But it does on-screen.

Mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

9. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 6:29 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

mine's RGB/300 dpi

makes no diff whether anti-alias is checked or not.

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

10. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 6:40 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

Have you tried an export?

Mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

11. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 6:43 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

Just tried that...it's not as heinous as what I see in Illustrator, but it's not as smooth as the samples you posted.

this is just weird!

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

12. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 6:53 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

It is weird. Should be a good export.

Here is the file I was working on. In the Export for web dialog, I increased the size to double my image.

http://www.wenzloffandsons.com/temp/capture-000051_rgb_export.png

Even if the browser resizes it like on this laptop, it looks great on my screen. It also prints to my Phaser great. If it doesn't on your screen, try a print. If that looks OK, it may just be the monitor. And if it does look good in print, are your video drivers up to date?

Mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

13. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 6:55 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

far as I know all my drivers and OS are the latest..

I guess it could be my monitor, but...your sample looks smooth on my monitor, too, so...must be some pesky setting, tho I can't figure what it would be.

I thank you for hangin in there with me...seems like any of the suggestions you offered up should have covered whatever it is!

w

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

14. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 6:59 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

I am pretty much out of ideas. Oh, one more thing. Just to make sure, does this happen to all documents or just this one?

Can you share the file? If you don't want it public, you can upload it to your site or perhaps to dropbox.com and PM me the link.

I am headed to the dinner table so it'll be a little bit before I look at it if you do decide to share.

Mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

15. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 7:00 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

that's a good idea...I can whip something up and put it out there, for grins and in the interest of Science.

;-)

I appreciate your offering to look...

w

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

16. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 7:08 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

OK..time out here...

I see what I did....I could get only so much blur on one object using the "outer glow" tool, so I copied and pasted in place a few times...this has the effect of increasing the intensity of the blur, but it also produces those nasty "squares" as well..

My total bad on this one...I created a new shape and got as smooth a blur on this monitor as you got on your botannical shape you posted.

Many thanks again for the time and energy you lent to this issue, Mike.

w

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

17. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 7:09 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

OK..time out again...

there are values which will produce the square chunk effect, even with pasting multiple copies in place...I'm going to post one such file for anyone who wants to play with it...the blur values on the object in the file I'll post produce the squares for me.

(I'm not totally nuts..)

w

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

18. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 7:15 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

Mike;

Here's the link to a file which exhibits the square chunks effect on a single object with gaussian blur applied:

http://coffeeonmars.com/screenshots/SquareChunksGaussBlur.ai.zip

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

19. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 7:56 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

Your object is barely 60 pixels wide. That's pretty small. The sample document opens at 452%.

Here is 100% on my system.

Barely larger than the filed for the artboard number...

Try this. For what ever reason the object is grouped. Here is before ungrouping and after.

That difference shows up at the document's 452% view. Why grouping makes a difference, I dunno.

Is there a reason for such small documents?

Mike

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

20. wkjeiwoi,

Mar 4, 2013 8:15 PM in reply to MikeWenzloff

Report

Thank you, Mike...

reason for such small documents? well, the art relates to type (a wordmark) and when I was selecting from 50 type faces I spaced out the need to begin the actual work at a size that made sense...working on a computer, zoomed up on your object, it's easy to lose track of what that object's actual dimensions are, until you see something weird like this.

interesting the effect grouping has on how that thing looks..

again, thank you for the time and energy you lent to this, Mike!

w

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

21. MikeWenzloff,

Mar 4, 2013 8:41 PM in reply to wkjeiwoi

Report

Hi W,

Well, personally no matter the output size, I tend to work at a larger size (up to a point). And then scale it down if for the web in the export for web dialog. Similar to, but the opposite of, making posters where I work smaller, export larger.

The file I am linking to is 800px square versus your 200px square. Try export to web at 200 px square. Or 1600 px square. Both are of the same quality and should look good on-screen.

By the way. For this example I used an outer glow and gaussian blur. Look in the appearance panel. I think it achieves the effect but the g-blur will blend the outer glow back into the filled path.

Anyway I think I am off for some relaxation for I nod off. I'll check back in tomorrow.

Take care, Mike

http://www.wenzloffandsons.com/temp/SquareChunksGaussBlur2.ai

|
Mark as: