Cutting a file into a mosaic or grid

Hi,

Does anyone know of any graphics application that can take a regular bitmap, and you can split the graphic into a mosaic/grid of say, 2x2, or 3x2, or 3x3, and it will then allow you to save the bitmap out as 4, 6 or 9 files respectively.

I am getting rather tired of doing this by hand using the ruler, someone must have a grid-mode or tile-mode or mosaic-mode to do the cutting up automatically for you.

Please

Vi

If you're using Photoshop, one quicky way is to pick the slice tool, right-click on the image, and pick Divide Slice… from that menu, then ImageReady or Save for Web... to save the slices as individual files. But for SL, you might leave it all one texture and play with repeats & offsets instead.

image magik ... hope your good with command line stuff heh

in pretty much any (real) image editor theres a slice tool, which is used to slice an image up any way you want for use on websites, altho its not automatic its 100000x better than boxing a area out and coping it to a new image then saving it, then going back and doing it all over again

just define your areas and click OK

One option I use for templates is to first design what I want in various layers (Photoshop CS2/CS3) break them up into their respective sizes and save it in PS using the 'define Pattern'.

Then I just fill the layer with the pattern and its always there, no need to open, save or copy paste from diferent files.

The Pattern itself gets saved as a .PAT file and depending on your method of save can be saved as an indivual .PAT file or as a group of patterns in a .PAT file. I don't know if there is any advantage in terms of file size but for images/paterns that I require on a regular basis it just makes it much more convenient and speeds up workflow.

Edit:
If you just want to split the image into various sizes then in Photoshop there is a filter called Offset, this will allow you to divide your image as you mention by inputting the horizontal and vertical amount of pixels. Much the same way as the Repeats in SL works except in PS its by pixel amount.

If you want simple then look no further than Split and Tile Image Splitter 2.07d, available from here http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Split-and-Tile-Image-Splitter-Download-23754.html

Just two values and two clicks:

1. Click Load image
2. Tell it how many squares across by how many down (2x2, 2x3 etc)
3. Click Save

It then saves automatically the number of cells in the grid, all numbered sequentially. Could not be simpler. I hate to think how many steps the same process in Photoshop would take.

Rock

1) Select Layer

2) Open Filter "Offset"

3) Tell it how many pixels Horizontally and Vertically, click ok

4) Save

So just 1 more than the program mentioned.

Why do people think that PS is so difficult, it's only a matter of taking the time and learning its built in features.

Why? because the program I recommended for that user's needs requires no learning, there is no manual as it is so simple and intuitive, and no learning curve.

The three steps I quoted included included opening the image file, did yours? Who would think that the way to mosaic or tile an image was buried in Filter/Offset?? Not exactly intuitive, is it? You also left out the steps in using a calculator to work out how many pixels you need to specify (instead of how many cells do you want your grid to be), and you also neglected to mention that the PS method does not save all the cells in one click, numbered sequentially.

There is no comparison. One was made for the job, the other is a cumbersome hammer to crack a nut, with a huge learning curve, with much poring over manuals.

BTW, I just timed it. I took a 1024x1024 pixel image, split it into a 4x4 grid, and saved all the resulting 16 files in one click, total time under 5 seconds.

Try your method in PS and post the time (be honest now, and I won't count the time you took to learn PS)

Rock

Hmmmm.... I suppose ANY program that can do only one thing is easier to use, for that one thing, than a full-spectrum program. Personally, I'd rather not invest in a stack of one-function programs, though. Use Photoshop or Gimp or Paintshop Pro for a while and you learn how to do LOTS of things.

And "intuitive?" I have NEVER found a program that is intuitive, for ANYTHING. A program either makes sense for you or it doesn't, and what makes sense for you doesn't necessarily make sense for the next person. The most successful programs -- the ones that people tend to label as "intuitive" -- are the ones that are (1) internally consistent, so they use the same logic for different types of operations and (2) have workflow features similar to other commonly-used programs. They seem "intuitive" because they match your personal approach to problem-solving and because they behave like other programs that you know and love. I started writing and using programs in the days of Fortran II, and have yet to find a routine for anything that a total novice can walk up to and understand "intuitively."

Larrie, I'm a little unclear on your methodology with the Offset filter. From what I gather, you're proposing first shrinking the canvas to be smaller than the whole image, then offsetting by the equivalent fraction of the whole to display one section at a time, and then manually saving after each application of the filter. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, and by all means enlighten me if you know something I don't, but that's the only way I can think of to do divisions via the Offset filter, and I have to say it's a pretty time-consuming way to go about it. It's certainly not what I would do.

I'll get to how I'd do it in a minute (it's a 3-clicks-and-you're-all-done procedure), but before I do, let me quickly address a couple of things Rock said.

Rock, I'd never heard of Split & Tile Image Splitter before your post, but I just checked it out, and I can assure you its interface and work flow, while admittedly very simple, are still far more complicated and clunky than that of the Photoshop procedure I'll be outlining in a minute. Your assumption that Photoshop's methodology would automatically be more complicated is entirely incorrect. I have to agree with Larrie in that regard that it's pretty silly that people automatically assume Photoshop has to be over-complicated. It's not.

I can understand why people do get that impression, though, since Photoshop is capable of doing literally hundreds of thousands of different things with images. It can certainly seem daunting if you think you have to learn every last function just to get started. From that point of view, I can see how the idea of having a bunch of single-purpose programs on hand can appear "easier". But what I think you're overlooking is that by the time you learn how to use every one of those programs, you've basically learned the equivalent of Photoshop anyway in terms of functions, except that instead of just one interface, you're dealing with hundreds of different ones. And no matter how simple each of those hundreds might be, there's just no way the lot of them added up can ever be as simple as the one interface that runs every function in Photoshop. So in your attempt to make things easier, you're actually making it much harder on yourself than it should be.

I would encourage you to let go of this notion of yours that Photoshop is a "cumbersome hammer". It's absolutely not. Think of it not as one giant tool, but rather a large set of finely crafted individual tools that happen to all come in one nice package, and all with the exact same kind of handle on them. Once you open yourself to discovering the proper way that that handle fits into your hand, you'll find that you've got everything in there, from the finest most delicate scalpel to the broadest heaviest sledge hammer, and all are equally easy to use, individually and collectively. In other words, quit focusing on the size of the toolbox, and think about the tools themselves. They're all in there, waiting for you to use them.

As for your argument that your number of steps is actually lower because it includes opening the image, I would have thought it should go without saying that that's a moot point. It's 100% negated by the fact that it ALWAYS has to be precluded by first outputting the file from whatever image editor you were previously working with, since obviously STIS won't be what you're creating the image in in the first place. The whole point of working in a one-stop-shop package like Photoshop is that you never need to exit the program at any point during production. From start to finish, every tool you need is right there. So of course Larrie's instructions didn't include opening the file. It's perfectly reasonable to assume it would already be open, since its creator would have beeen working on it right up until the point of division. Your count is only lower if you're talking about a pre-existing image, and even then, it's not a very poignant statement.




OK, with that out of the way, let's (finally) talk about the simplest way to do this in Photoshop. Here's how to divide up an image in three easy steps:






1. With the Slice tool selected, right click on the canvas, and select Divide Slice from the pop-up menu. The Divide Slice dialog will appear.

2. In the Divide Slice dialog, you have a very simple list of options for horizontal and vertical division options. You can divide fractionally into your desired number of sections, or by exact pixel counts, whichever you prefer. Just plug in your numbers, and click OK. Your image will now be divvied up perfectly into slices.

3. Click File -> Save For Web & Devices. If your file is very large, you may get a warning that it's larger than a typical Web or device intended image would ordinarily be. Don't worry about that; just click OK. Now, in the Save For Web & Devices dialong, choose an output format, and click Save. You'll end up with a folder full of all your slices as individual images.

That's it. You're done.


One nice thing about doing it this way is that you can also save your master PSD as normal, and your slice lines will remain intact. They'll be there next time you open the PSD, so if you want to make changes to the imagery, you won't have to slice it up all over again. Just make your changes, hit Save For Web & Devices just like the first time, and you'll be all set. Also, you can alter or remove the slices any time you want, and you can even choose which slices not to output if you don't want to do them all every time. Photoshop handles slices really, really well.

The only downside to this is that it doesn't allow for all image formats at the time of output. Since Save For Web & Devices is only for, well, Web and device compatible imagery, file format options are a bit limited. So TGA is out. (However, you do get a lot more options than SITA gives you. See my edit at the bottom of this post for more details.)

For format, I recommend using PNG for this. Just remember to uncheck the Transparency box if you don't need transparency in the image, as it will be checked by default. This is always good practice with PNG's, to prevent accidental 32-bit imagery in-world.






EDITED TO ADD: I just downladed Split & Tile Image Splitter, and I have to say I'm EXTREMELY disappointed with it. Sorry, Rock, but it's about 75% useless for texturing purposes. First, it will only open three kinds of files, JPEG, GIF, and BMP, which is just plain silly. Second, it will only output JPEG and BMP, which is even sillier. That automatically means you can't use it for anything with transparency at all. I hate to say it, but it's a fairly ridiculous program.

When you first mentioned it, I was hoping it would be good. But unfortunately, it's just not. My recommendation to all reading would be to steer clear of it.

I would appear that in shouting the praises of PS no-one has actually read what the OP asked for. Vi asked for a prog that would open a BITMAP, split it up into a mosaic, and save the BITMAP out automatically.

Why on earth a program that opens bitmaps, splits them up into a mosaic, and saves the bitmaps out automatically (precisely what the OP asked for) should be called 'silly' and something to 'steer well clear of', is only something that proponents of PS could possibly answer. I'm staggered.

The OP used the key words in her post of 'bitmap' and 'mosaic/grid'. Larrie's reply used the keywords 'templates', 'layers', 'pattern', '*.PAT' files, and if the expectation was that the OP should know what these terms meant, or indeed that the OP uses PS, then that is simply too presumptuous. Viktoria did ask 'If you're using Photoshop'... which of course is the right thing to ask if you intend giving a PS answer.

Chosen, if you do not like the fact that I included the Open File click as one of my 2 clicks, then fine, I will omit it. My solution is now down to 1 click.

I looked at your solution in my PS (yes, I do use it), and I counted the actual number of mouse clicks, and it is much more than the solution I proposed. You have lumped processes together under the headings of 'steps', which are very different to 'clicks'. The Slice tool doesn't select itself, and Divide Slice doesn't select itself either, and so on. But are these all 'moot' points also?

Under 5 seconds is what I got out of this simple app, i defy anyone to do better in PS (in fact I did it faster than it took for PS to fully load up and get ready for your process!!

I hope the OP doesn't ask for a radio, or you'd sell her a Rolls Royce and say, 'there it is, in the middle of the dashboard there'. 'That'll be US$200,000 please!'

Rock (sides splitting)

Vi posted in June extensive questions about using Photoshop and transparencies. Among others, Chosen gave quite detailed answers to those questions. It is natural that they would help her understand that the program she already uses can do the job she asks for in this thread.

*shrugs* I wouldn't call that "shouting praises" exactly. In this case, she already has and uses the "Rolls Royce," so, yes, it does make more sense to point out the built-in radio rather than trying to convince her to run to Walmart for a new radio.

This is a silly argument - you are all so helpful and the information is, certainly, useful for the OP. Posting several solutions is excellent as the forum solution-seeker of tomorrow might be familiar with different methods or have slightly different needs.

Now, now, boys

I must admit I was totally bewildered by Larrie's reply (but thanks for taking the time to answer anyway), but I just could relate the answer to the question I asked.

I use Microsoft Paint mostly, to create simple Windows bitmap (*.bmp) files, which I use for terrains (and is perfectly good for what I use it for). But when I want to terraform a group of sims, I have to make one large bitmap, then cut it up using my ruler to set the cut points.

Rock's suggestion worked perfectly, exactly what I wanted, and I must disagree with Rolig, it was perfectly simple, and completely intuitive (to me, anyway, and that is saying something, lol), and it is only US$19.95.

Many thanks Rock, and no, I do not need a radio, thanks

Vi

When did designing become a road race? If I can use a full-featured program I already have to do something new, why would I want to buy another program to do it, even if the new program can do it in 5 seconds flat? It's a LOT smarter to learn to do new tricks with a familiar program than to spend time and money on a one-shot wonder --- especially one that has limited capability. If all this one can do is slice up BMP and JPG files, it's not much good for a lot of textures in SL anyway.

Rock, you assume too much. I'll leave alone for the moment that "you didn't read" is the warcry of the lost and dying in most forum arguments, and talk about what was actually written. First of all, while you're right that the OP did say "bitmap", it's worthy of note that she didn't specify the "BMP" format in particular. A TGA file, which just so happens to be of the most commonly used type in all of texturing, is also a bitmap. The BMP format is hardly used for anything ever, unless you happen to be in love with Windows wallpaper images, which is not really what we talk about here.

When the OP said "regular bitmap", my interpretation was she was talking simply about an uncompressed raster image, not about any particular file extension. This is a texturing forum after all. Very few people on Earth use BMP for that purpose.

The OP also mentioned the use of tools such as rulers and grids, which typically only exist in full fledged image editing programs. That said to me that the ideal solution to suggest for her would be one that is doable from inside such a program. Since Photoshop is what I know best, and is what most people use, I decided to start with that. Had she come back and said "I don't use Photoshop; I use PSP," we could have then taken appropriate steps to talk about what to do in that program. Starting with Photoshop, though, is what is usually of most benefit to the most readers.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with suggesting other more singly purposed programs, as long as they're up to the task at hand. It just happened that the one you suggested, while suitable for pre-existing BMP files, is not versatile enough to be of much use to the average texture artist. It just can't handle the formats we need to use on a daily basis. Hence, my recommendation was, and still is, that most people shouldn't use it. So "steer clear" was absolutely the right advice in that regard. Sorry if you can't see that.

As for the "moot points" you mentioned, yes, they are all absolutely moot when you take into account (again) that the program you suggested is 100% incapable of creating images. All it can do is slice them up. So in any full accounting of all steps involved, you'd have to start with:

1. Finish creating your whole image in your full featured raster editor of choice.

2. Click File -> Save As. (Or is that two steps? There I go combining things again.)

3. In the Save As dialog, give your file a name, choose BMP as the format, and click OK. (Whoops, that was three more steps by your count, wasn't it? I can't seem to get it straight.)

4. (Optional) Close or minimize your raster editing program.

5. Launch STIS.

As you might put it, the BMP file doesn't create itself, the image editor doesn't vanish from the desktop on its own, the slicing program doesn't launch itself, etc., right? So by consistent application of the logic you've insisted upon so far, there are anywhere from four to eight additional "clicks" for every image, depending on how anal you want to be about what constitutes a "combination" step, before you even get to the pushing of the first button in your little slice & dice application.

Sorry if it doesn't jive with your notion of what's right and good with the universe, but I'd rather just leave all that alone, and concentrate on the actual meat of what's involved. By definition, using one program is simpler than using two, so that should be enough to end any argument right there. But just in case it's not, I could add that we benefit even further here from the fact that this particular task happens to be one that Photoshop has been quite god at for at least a decade now, and its Slice tool has more power in its arsenal and directness in its application than your little one-trick-pony ever could. Heck, the simple fact that you get to see the slice lines appear on the actual image, rather than on just a cheezy little thumbnail of it, makes using PS more than worthwhile for this.

Here's what it boils down to. Your way involves multiple redundant saves and multiple programs. My way involves one program, and just one save (well, two if you count archiving your PSD, but since you'd do that either way, that's a wash.) The only exception is if you're talking about pre-existing imagery that fell off a truck somewhere, and that happens to already be in a particular format. For anything involving original work, or work that's in any format other than the three your program understands, all that pre-saving and app-switching is just a waste of time. I don't think that's particularly hard to understand.

Sorry Chosen, it is you that assumed too much:

1. You assumed that the OP when the OP said a 'regular bitmap' she meant something other than a bmp file. As the OP has now pointed out, she did mean a bmp, and your assumption was wrong.

2. You assumed that when she used the word 'grid' she meant a 'tool'. Again, you got it wrong, she meant a grid as in a mosaic, which is the way I read it.

Sweet Primrose has pointed out that the OP has asked questions about PS in the past, I must admit, I did not do background checks before answering the question exactly as it was put, but having now read those posts Primrose neglected to point out that Vi also said there that 'it is all getting beyond me now', curiously, after an 'explanation' by you!! Ah-ah!!

3. You also assumed that the solution the OP was asking for was for creating images, when you said that 'the program you suggested is 100% incapable of creating images'. Again, you got it wrong, the OP had already got an image, and wanted to cut it up. I suggested a program for cutting it up, and you are still banging on about creating images!

As for 'The BMP format is hardly used for anything ever, unless you happen to be in love with Windows wallpaper images', I have never heard of anything so ridiculous (this week). Every terrain creation program I have uses the BMP format for both file input and output for heightfields (the SL RAW file format is a variation on this, a bmp without the header), and the OpenSim terrain load command takes bmp files (which from Vi's follow up is seems to be exactly what she is doing).

You also stated, quite incorrectly, that the utility I recommended uses 'multiple redundant saves', it does not. One click produces all the saves, numbered sequentially.

It seems that your obsession with PS, and it being the cure-all for everything, blinds you to the questions that are actually put, leads you to make assumptions that are simply not true, and to make claims about other applications that are false.

Everyone has their favourite applications, but I think you take your favouritism to extremes, to rubbish other suggestions, even if the OP, who apparently has PS, says that my recommendation was exactly what she was looking for, you are not fazed in the slightest, and to even suggest that you read the question that was actually put, and for you to dismiss that as 'the warcry of the lost and dying in most forum arguments', I despair.

Rock

I agree..... It is getting silly, Osprey. It IS a good idea for people to present and debate different solutions to a posted question, but it's also a good idea to back off from positions and listen to what's being said. It sounds to me as if the OP got at least two solutions that would work in her specific situation. The debate beyond that is really about how appropriate each solution is for slicing up images for use in SL in general. How well can they do the job of slicing up the sorts of files that most people create .... TGA, PNG, JPG, with and without transparency? I think this robust discussion has laid out enough good information and opinion to let people make up their own minds at this point.



LOL. It's as hard to figure out gender from names in SL as in RL. Not germane to this thread, but I'm as female as I assume you are, Vi. Even came in 2nd in a beauty pageant last week. Depending on which Scandinavian language is your favorite, "Rolig" means either "calm" or "funny." I know, it doesn't always fit ....

I'd say we both assumed more than we should have on that one, actually. The wording of the original post was at best unclear. So we naturally had two different interpretations, both of which were equally valid until the point of clarification by the author. I'll admit my mistake in not noticing that said author had already replied before I wrote my last post. I just didn't see her followup.


Actually, my point was that she'd been using a ruler tool to do the work. That point still stands. Say what you want about the word "grid" (I still think I was right on that as well), but the ruler thing can't be argued with. You'd do well to keep things in context, and not try to extract only the words you think suit your argument.


And your point is what, exactly? In the post you're referring to, there was something the author didn't understand about Photoshop, after she had tried to tackle a tutorial that was beyond her current skill level with the program. I replied to her question, and then she immediately realized the question itself was a little more involved than she had first thought. I, and others, then worked to try to help her understand. What you think is so wrong with that, I can't fathom.




I'm not sure where you're getting that, Rock? Are you just making this up as you go along? Take another look at that followup post. She quite clearly said, "I have to make one large bitmap". Obviously she's not going around hunting for pre-existing images. She's making her own.




Terrain creation programs don't exactly fall on the beaten path of common usage. It's not suprising that some might utilize BMP's since it's an easy format to include with just about anything, but whether they do or they don't, it still remains true that BMP's aren't used for much. The vast majority of texturing that happens in this world does not involve BMP in any way, shape, or form.

I'm happy for you that you happened to guess right that terrain was what she was doing, but that doesn't negate anything I said.


You misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that the slicing program does anything redundantly in and of itself. The redundancy lies in the fact that you need to output a BMP file first, in order to use it. My point was that if you do the slicing directly inside Photoshop, you save the step of outputting that large BMP altogether. You go directly from your working document to the slices. That's it, no redundant saves. Get it?


The only one who made false claims is you, which by your own words, were based on your mistaken assumption that Photoshop has to be over-complicated. Your exact words were "I hate to think how many steps the same process in Photoshop would take," (because you didn't know), when in truth, Photoshop has a dedicated tool designed for exactly the task in question, and its implementation only takes a couple of clicks. Your initial assumption, and subsequent insistence, that it has to be more complicated than it actually is what I'd call obsession.

For the record, I don't think Photoshop is a cure-all for anything. It's nothing more than what I said it was a few posts ago. It's a very nice collection of tools that all come in a well-put-together package. If you'd rather use a hundred different programs to do the same thing, that's up to you. But when I know someone already has a complete set of tools at their disposal, I'm not about to suggest they go buy another one.

I'm glad the OP finds the tool you suggested useful; I really am. But reall, the $19.95 she spent on it was a waste, considering she already spent $600 on a program that has the same functionality built right into it. Again, I don't see why that's so hard to understand.


I didn't "rubbish your suggestion", and it's not about favoritism in any way. I downloaded the program you suggested, I tried it out, and I gave my honest review of it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

You like that little toy program, fine. I don't. Live with it.


No, I'm not phased, nor should I be. Again, I'm happy that the OP is enjoying her new purchase.

Just because my interpretation of one ambiguous statement in the original post turned out to be the wrong interpretation, doesn't mean that anything I've said is wrong. By the wording of the post alone, it could just have easily gone the other way, and every factual statement I've made has been accurate, unlike your "I hate to think how many steps" assertion. But if it makes you feel big and powerful to be right, you go right ahead and be right. It doesn't much matter to me. All I care about is that the truth be made available to all who want to look for it, and it was. That's all that really matters.




"Despair" all you want if it makes you feel better. Again, the wording was ambiguous. That doesn't mean I didn't read it. Crying "you didn't read" when someone disagrees with you, whether you happen to be right or wrong, is childish. I think you know perfectly well that everyone who responded here did in fact read the original post. No one ever just posts to say hello. All try to answer the question asked. If you think otherwise, then by all means despair, because your world must be a lot sadder than mine. Good luck to you.