-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Digitizing Logo
- Thread starter CreativeCreationGraphics
- Start date
How big does it need to be? If it's large enough (4 inches ) you can use simple auto digitizing, if it's smaller or it need to look more professional you need to redraw the lines one by one and use satin stitch to make it follow the direction. If you have more complex logo that you'd like to outsource, just contact me.
You can use their software named PE-Design: http://www.brothersewing.co.uk/en_GB/software
And you can find some video tutorials here: http://www.brothersewing.co.uk/en_GB/pe-design-tutorial
And you can find some video tutorials here: http://www.brothersewing.co.uk/en_GB/pe-design-tutorial
CreativeCreationGraphics
New Member
It will probably smaller, maybe an 1.5". How long do you think it would take to convert?
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
NM.
Last edited:
CreativeCreationGraphics
New Member
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
NM = Never mind.
He was giving me a speech about why I advise you auto-digitizing when I was advising him earlier a cracked version of a high priced software. Well the answer is that manual digitizing is always good, but there are cases where auto-digitizing can produce good enough results. Not sure about the original text that he changed to NM earlier as I was drunk when read it.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
You weren't advising me about a cracked version. 1st I didn't start the post asking that and 2. after 24 yrs in this (embroidery) trade, I don't need to know about cracked versions and I already am sure about what software that I would use (and Pulse isn't it, I'm not saying it isn't good software, I just don't use it).
So even at "good enough results" you expect that to be achieved by someone that doesn't know about proper production digitizing, what stitch types to be used when, at what angles at what densities? You expect all that to be handled by auto conversion modules of software that you believe to be "rubbish and poorly made"? Which I can understand why you think that now if you believe that auto conversion (notice that I'm always saying conversion, not digitizing, there is no such thing as auto digitizing, digitizing implies certain thinking that at this point, none of the available embroidery software does in the auto conversion process) produces "good enough results".
I'm trying really hard to determine your thought process from getting cracked versions of software that you believe to be rubbish and poorly made and then believe that the one aspect that really, really depends on said rubbish and poorly made software to someone that doesn't even know how to fix bad quality, even if they could identify it.
For instance, the attached is a very common long stitch mistake that auto conversion software makes when auto digitizing and not fixing it. These long stitches can cause problems. In this object, it should not exist period and easy enough to fix, if the software used has the appropriate tools to fix it (and the operator knows what is needed to fix it). I don't know of a software that doesn't do it and I did auto conversion for this object and this was 1 4" object and it still did it. If the auto conversion does fills of even simple objects like this, long stitches will be in there.
There are certain complex objects that you can't eliminate the issue, but you can mitigate where it happens to relegate it to the smallest area affected. But again, if you are relying on auto conversion, you'll have to know what is wrong, how to fix it and have software that has the tools to fix the issue. Ironically, the cheaper the software, the more it relies on auto conversion and no tools to fix the issue(s).
When it's on object like this, it is almost always auto conversion. If the person digitized the shape on their own, then it's either not having to the tools to fix it, not knowing how to fix it, or plain ignorance. Those that started off with auto conversion and not knowing any better, more then likely don't see an issue with what I'm talking about. But long stitches are no bueno and I don't know of an auto conversion program out there that doesn't put them in there if the user doesn't fix them post conversion.
That and given the fact that conversion will 95% of the time try to cram satin stitches when they can't possibly work in vary small areas.
There is no way that auto conversion by itself is good, period. If one believe that especially considering that they also believe that all digitizing software is rubbish and poorly made, there are issues there.
To the OP, if you don't know how to digitize, auto conversion is even worse, because it almost always requires post conversion cleanup. If you are wanting to, or eventual have to, put this on hats, you'll have to do a lot of work to fix what the conversion software does to get it sequenced right, if that's the only thing that has to be changed. If it's going on hats right out of the gate, then pucker up, because it's going to be a lot of changes to get it at best sequenced right. As I also said, probably will have to change some stitch types as well. Auto conversion tries really hard to use satin as much as it can, sometimes some of those need to be run stitches, sometimes they actually need to be fill.
Get files from a source that you trust. Watch how it stitches, when they use what stitch type over the other, densities that are used. What changes from one size to the next or from one substrate to the next (hats versus flats etc). Then try to copy their digitizing (for your own projects) and see if you can match it. After that, then start digitizing for your customers. At least have the basic knowledge of digitizing before trying to take the easy way that almost always requires knowledge to fix it for production quality and efficiency.
Attachments
Last edited:
He was giving me a speech about why I advise you auto-digitizing when I was advising him earlier a cracked version of a high priced software. Well the answer is that manual digitizing is always good, but there are cases where auto-digitizing can produce good enough results. Not sure about the original text that he changed to NM earlier as I was drunk when read it.
Not calling it auto digitizing but auto conversion, I mean sweetlordjesuschrist, you take things very seriously, don't you?
Sorry didn't read all the text, it's just too long.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
Let me ask you this, do you imagine that the users on here that are passionate about their trade get serious on certain advise that goes against their decades long experience?
Oddly enough, you pick the one comment that had the least value to comment on versus everything else. Even within the same paragraph that had what you did comment on.
Auto conversion( or digitizing if you prefer) is the single biggest thing that has trivialized an important part of the trade (it's a big factor in what is junk, sufficient, or high quality in the finished good) that I've been involved in for a very long, long time. And auto conversion really hasn't improved at all over the years (it would require a revamp of software, some of which has been around since the late 70s, early 80s). So when I see it get mentioned as a place to start learning, I do tend to get a little uppity about it.
Having reached the point in thinking that what I had to say would fall on "deaf ears" (or "eyes" in this case) is precisely why I changed my original post to NM.
Last edited:
So, if the bickering would cease, I'd be curious to know the simple answer to the original question....what is the best way for him to digitize that logo...invest in expensive software X and take 3 months to learn it for the utmost quality.....invest in lower cost software Y for simple jobs that might get you by on an everyday basis.....send it out to a quality digitzer (who?).....sell your machine and sub out all your work.....etc.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
I gave my suggestion in the last paragraph of post #9.
I would be hesitant to think of it in terms of this. It all boils down to knowledge and what tools are available to you and what you can use with said knowledge. Depending on your knowledge, depends on what price point is the best. You can get the same quality from an open source digitizing program as you can from one that MSRPs for $15k. The difference is how well is that base digitizing knowledge and just apply it to the different tools available in the program. Now, some price points are more limiting then others in what tools (or lack thereof) they offer.
To me, the more tools that provide the most control is the best to have, but they can be had at different price points. For me, as long as I have a manual input (1 mouse click equals 1 needle insertion), that's all I need. Time for me to do things changes, but that's all that I truly need to maintain quality.
3 months may not be enough time. If just corporate work, I can see that being realistic for hats and shirts. But to cover the wide gamut of things that a dedicated embroidery shop would cover, it takes a good long while. I've been doing this for 24 yrs and I'm still learning new techniques (fabrics and quality of fabrics and even things like puff foam have change in quality from the 90s to now,design styles change etc over the years; it's not static).
I would be hesitant to think of it in terms of this. It all boils down to knowledge and what tools are available to you and what you can use with said knowledge. Depending on your knowledge, depends on what price point is the best. You can get the same quality from an open source digitizing program as you can from one that MSRPs for $15k. The difference is how well is that base digitizing knowledge and just apply it to the different tools available in the program. Now, some price points are more limiting then others in what tools (or lack thereof) they offer.
To me, the more tools that provide the most control is the best to have, but they can be had at different price points. For me, as long as I have a manual input (1 mouse click equals 1 needle insertion), that's all I need. Time for me to do things changes, but that's all that I truly need to maintain quality.
3 months may not be enough time. If just corporate work, I can see that being realistic for hats and shirts. But to cover the wide gamut of things that a dedicated embroidery shop would cover, it takes a good long while. I've been doing this for 24 yrs and I'm still learning new techniques (fabrics and quality of fabrics and even things like puff foam have change in quality from the 90s to now,design styles change etc over the years; it's not static).
Last edited:
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
I'm resurrecting this thread due to an interesting conversation in another thread having to do with vectors here.
This is something that I just don't understand. The very same reasons that people have a valid concern with auto conversion from raster to bitmap are very similar to the concerns with auto conversion in embroidery. The unfortunate big difference between the 2 is that the embroidery toolset for this is not as robust as the vector toolset for this. So if one has a problem with the vector version of these tools, I just don't understand why be accepting of it in with the embroidery version.
Bare in mind as well, creating these files are what set apart one shop from the next. Your production time (which equals money that you make on the job) also is directly attached to how well the file is create. Auto conversion, in my 24 yr experience, has not produced a pattern with the most efficient method possible. Especially for hats considering I have to do a custom underlay to maintain a very specific stitching sequence for certain fill objects, that isn't built in to any program that I'm aware of.
And if you are learning to do this by being dependent on a toolset such as this, it's very hard to change and the cheaper the software is, for the most part, the more dependent you are on the auto conversion tools. I do know of 2 exceptions to this in the open source world, but for the most part in the closed source proprietary world this is the case.
Some do do better then others (just like in the vector tracing world), but the one issue that I highlighted earlier on a very simple object (complex objects it will happen no matter what, it's about mitigation in that instance) happens in all of them. Doesn't matter if you spend $700 or $15k on a program.