Confetti stitches and miniature pictures.

When stitching computer generated patterns of great works of art,
as I have observed before, I am amazed at some of the detail which
these patterns show when stitched. There are times when a few confetti
stitches bring out wonderful details; there are others when such stitches
add absolutely nothing at all. In order to try and understand this a
little, I decided to take some works of art, and stitch them,
reductio ad absurdum, at a very small size. I have done two;
the Mona Lisa, 20 by 30 stitches; and Tom Thompson's West Wind,
30 by 26 stitches. I have posted pictures and patterns on my web site
at www.ncf.ca/~bf906. The web site is very amateurish, and the patterns
have not come out too well. However, if people are really interested,
there are other ways of distributing patterns if necessary.
Both pictures show the same sort of effect. When you look
closely enough to be able to distinguish the individual stitches, you
can see approximately what the picture is all about. However, if you
move away until you just cannot see individual stitches, the details
sort of snap into view. I am particularly impressed with West Wind.
Close up you can see the sky, clouds, hills in the background, the water,
the land in the foreground and the tree. But all these are rather fuzzy
close up. When you move away, the details sharpen up. I particularly
like the tree trunk; it is not quite vertical to the pattern, but when
viewed from a distance, it stands out quite clearly.
What all this leads me to, is a warning not to ignore confetti
stitches. They may be unimportant, but I find it is difficult, if not
impossible, to know about this when I doing the actual stitching.
It is only when you see the stitched piece, that you can tell whether
the confetti stitches matter or not.
As a final note, many years ago, maybe 30 or 40, I saw a picture
of the Mona Lisa done with even fewer pixels. I think I saw it in
Time or Newsweek, maybe both. I have tried in vain to find it again.
I thought it was done by some pattern recognition software, but a
friend told me it was done by Salvator Dali for some arts conference.
If anyone has any news of this particular piece, I would be most
grateful to hear where I might find it. TIA.
--
Jim Cripwell.
The gods do not subtract from the allotted span of one's life, any
time that is spent in stitching.
Adapted from a sign on The Cobb, Lyme Regis, England.

I thoroughly enjoyed the explanation and seeing the pictures in
question. I walked about 8 feet away from the monitor and it was
amazing how different the effect was.

Thanks.
Dianne

F.James Cripwell wrote:
When stitching computer generated patterns of great works of art,
as I have observed before, I am amazed at some of the detail which
these patterns show when stitched. There are times when a few confetti
stitches bring out wonderful details; there are others when such stitches
add absolutely nothing at all. In order to try and understand this a
little, I decided to take some works of art, and stitch them,
reductio ad absurdum, at a very small size. I have done two;
the Mona Lisa, 20 by 30 stitches; and Tom Thompson's West Wind,
30 by 26 stitches. I have posted pictures and patterns on my web site
at www.ncf.ca/~bf906. The web site is very amateurish, and the patterns
have not come out too well. However, if people are really interested,
there are other ways of distributing patterns if necessary.
Both pictures show the same sort of effect. When you look
closely enough to be able to distinguish the individual stitches, you
can see approximately what the picture is all about. However, if you
move away until you just cannot see individual stitches, the details
sort of snap into view. I am particularly impressed with West Wind.
Close up you can see the sky, clouds, hills in the background, the water,
the land in the foreground and the tree. But all these are rather fuzzy
close up. When you move away, the details sharpen up. I particularly
like the tree trunk; it is not quite vertical to the pattern, but when
viewed from a distance, it stands out quite clearly.
What all this leads me to, is a warning not to ignore confetti
stitches. They may be unimportant, but I find it is difficult, if not
impossible, to know about this when I doing the actual stitching.
It is only when you see the stitched piece, that you can tell whether
the confetti stitches matter or not.
As a final note, many years ago, maybe 30 or 40, I saw a picture
of the Mona Lisa done with even fewer pixels. I think I saw it in
Time or Newsweek, maybe both. I have tried in vain to find it again.
I thought it was done by some pattern recognition software, but a
friend told me it was done by Salvator Dali for some arts conference.
If anyone has any news of this particular piece, I would be most
grateful to hear where I might find it. TIA.
--
Jim Cripwell.
The gods do not subtract from the allotted span of one's life, any
time that is spent in stitching.
Adapted from a sign on The Cobb, Lyme Regis, England.

Hi Jim

I never remove a single confetti stitch when I'm working on pictures.

However, before I make the final chart, I make several shifting the
image right and left before doing the conversions to see which one
picks up the better detail, sometimes 1/32 of an inch shift on the
pattern can make a really big difference in certain details when cut
from 640 pixels down to 16, 14 or 12 pixels per inch.

To get the greatest detail, I will often work with as many colors as
possible. This makes for even more confetti stitches, but the
finished pieces are quite awesome.

I'm finally back to working a little on the OLD MILL I started a
couple of years ago. I had to set it aside while making a move to a
different state and am living in quite cramped quarters with most of
my stuff still in storage in two different states. It seems free time
is not something I have been afforded much of lately.

TTUL
Gary

No-one designing just for their OWN use minds confetti stitches, of course,
but if you`re designing a chart for sale you need to bear in mind that most
people won`t want a lot of confetti stitches!

Maybe one should do two versions of the same chart - one for the more
demanding and advanced stitcher, and one for the larger percentage who want
something that won`t challenge them TOO much. My old tudor roofs and the
trees on many of my designs are an example. Whilst people like the finished
effect, they do tend to scare many of them.

I suggest that as long as they get the darkest and lightest stitches in the
right place, they can really be very casual about the rest! Many people are
still nervous about even that, though!

Mind you, I can understand it. Even when stitching my own designs - let
alone anyone else`s - I tend to stick RIGIDLY to the chart, even if it`s
only trees and roofs!!!

As you suggest, Gary - that single stitch may make all the difference.

Pat P

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." wrote
in message ...
Hi Jim

I never remove a single confetti stitch when I'm working on pictures.

However, before I make the final chart, I make several shifting the
image right and left before doing the conversions to see which one
picks up the better detail, sometimes 1/32 of an inch shift on the
pattern can make a really big difference in certain details when cut
from 640 pixels down to 16, 14 or 12 pixels per inch.

To get the greatest detail, I will often work with as many colors as
possible. This makes for even more confetti stitches, but the
finished pieces are quite awesome.

I'm finally back to working a little on the OLD MILL I started a
couple of years ago. I had to set it aside while making a move to a
different state and am living in quite cramped quarters with most of
my stuff still in storage in two different states. It seems free time
is not something I have been afforded much of lately.

TTUL
Gary

Both pictures show the same sort of effect. When you look
closely enough to be able to distinguish the individual stitches, you
can see approximately what the picture is all about. However, if you
move away until you just cannot see individual stitches, the details
sort of snap into view. BRBR

Jim, what you are experimenting with here reminds me very much of the work of
Chuck Close, the American photorealist painter famous for his enormous
pixalated portraits, which look like randomly colored geometric patterns from a
few feet away. Examples of his work on the web are he

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/close_chuck.html

Most of the images in the links can be enlarged so you can see how the images
become more abstract as you get closer to them. Note the dimensions, too.
These works in real life are huge.

Annie

"FKBABB" wrote in message
...
Both pictures show the same sort of effect. When you look
closely enough to be able to distinguish the individual stitches, you
can see approximately what the picture is all about. However, if you
move away until you just cannot see individual stitches, the details
sort of snap into view. BRBR

Jim, what you are experimenting with here reminds me very much of the work
of
Chuck Close, the American photorealist painter famous for his enormous
pixalated portraits, which look like randomly colored geometric patterns
from a
few feet away. Examples of his work on the web are he

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/close_chuck.html

Most of the images in the links can be enlarged so you can see how the
images
become more abstract as you get closer to them. Note the dimensions, too.
These works in real life are huge.

Annie

It hadn't dawned on me until now, but Seurat and the pointillists were
masters of the confetti stitch -- think "A Sunday on La Grande Jette" among
others!

Felice