Can anyone tell me a way of avoiding this?
Certainly not without something to go on.
No one can address quetions of the mapping geometry without seeing the specific artwork and 3D shapes you are mapping to.
Okay - here is the flat test graphic and also a screen grab which shows the outline and the 3d result. you'll see around the part where the shape curves at the edges, the mapped graphic is distorted.
Thanks for your time
Just added an image which shows the wireframe itself.
Gradient is 3d mapped artwork are converted to raster, that maybe a reason you see some distortions. Make sure your "Document Raster Effect Setting" is set at least at 300dpi, maybe even more.
Thanks Jean-Claude - but the resolution is high and changing it doesn't appear to make a difference. Good thought though!
Does the logo on top of the white shape is all vector or an image? Their is indeed some weird distortion happening. Maybe because it's a mix of gradient (that will turn into a raster) and vector objects.
One thing you can try.
- Group the art and apply a Raster Effect at the group level before creating the symbol
- Rasterize a copy of the Art before creating the symbols.
Again, a good avenue but the image is a flat raster graphic. Have you noticed that the distortion corresponds to the spot on the mesh where the vertices are closer together? I tried adding anchor points to the original curve that I'm extruding but this just seems to cause further (and rather ugly) corruption to the mapped artwork.
We've had to go ahead and supply to the client without the mockup now which is a shame but I'd still really like to know how to get this right for the future - it'd be a pain to have to get to grips with Blender or similar for such a simple task.
Just did a test with your surface screen capture. It look like the 3d effect does not play well with raster image at all. Even trying to remove some anchor point does not produce good result.
If the art was all in vector it would have wrap without major distortion. (I have convert the surface to vector using live trace and did a test).
I think you are out of luck...
If you have it in vector, use it. Or maybe try to do it in Photoshop Extended with a 3d layer. (Might just need someone with 3d skills and software to draw the stand for you.)
Has nothing to do with its being raster or vector.
Assuming these things:
- The model path's length and extrusion depth, of the surface to which you are mapping the artwork, is proportional to the artwork.
- You mapped the artwork to a single surface.
- You did not disproportionately scale the Symbol in the Map Art dialog.
The horizontal distortion is due to the curve handles of the anchorPoints defining the surface. After mapping the artwork, select the model path and apply Object>Path>AddAnchorPoints a couple of times. See if that corrects the distortion.
The horizontal distortion is due to the curve handles of the anchorPoints defining the surface.
Yepp, exactly. Uneven intermediate nodes on the spline... To bad AI has no "Rebuild curves" tool as in CAD or 3D programs. Would fix this in a wee.
Yeah - added points. Distortion went crazy.
I'm beginning think that maybe Illustrator is just not the tool for this.
Adding anchors points will make it fail more than fix it. With any 3d effects, the less anchors point and the smoother you have them is better.
Normally like to keep my shapes clean but I was willing to give it a shot ;-)
James, in your sample adding anchor point make it smoother indeed. But did you have to reposition the mapped symbol, since adding anchors also add surfaces and often the mapped art move to others surface. When I said that having less anchors point and smoother curves producing better 3d rendering I was thinking more about the fact that it will be better to map artworks since you will have less surfaces.
In the few test I have done with raster mapped symbols, when adding anchors point the raster get all mess up really bad. So it look that in some circumstance it’s better with more and with other it’s better with less.
But did you have to reposition the mapped symbol, since adding anchors also add surfaces
No. I did exactly what my instructions indicated: I simply positioned the Symbol for mapping onto the front surface, with no scaling. After Illusrtator rendered the result, I selected Add AnchorPoints twice.
The distortion was due to the extended handles of the middle point which gives the front surface its concave shape. Adding anchorPoints effectively shortens the handles, thereby lessening their distortion effect. That does not necessarily add surfaces to the model. A 3D Effect model does not necessarily create additional surfaces for each "patch" defined by anchorPoints. You can see that easily by simply extruding a filled, unstroked ellipse into a cylinder with open endcaps: One surface, despite the four anchorpoints in the section.
Moreover, with the preview checkbox on, the 3D Effect interface highlights the surfaces on your model as you page through them in the Map Art dialog.
OF COURSE the model's section path needs to be drawn with some sense about what 3D Effect will have to do to it geometrically, and about the scale of the 3D model settings relative to the size and aspect ratio of the mapped artwork (thus my admonitions to that effect in my second post). One can't just willy-nilly apply elaborate automatic effects to any carelessly-drawn path and expect results to work right. But assuming appropriately-drawn sections for the extrusion, adding anchorPoints can be an effective means by which to correct distortion caused by long curve handles--just as it can also be used to more closely approximate uniform spacing of Blend steps along curves spines. The long radius concave front of a trade show backdrop is a case-in-point.
Thanks again James...
All we can say is that creating proper shape for 3d effect is an art in itself. ;-)
It’s also seems that Raster Mapped Symbols respond a bit strange with added anchor point.