This video shows how I used "Bump-Mapping" and "layer modes" to give a t-shirt graphic depth and or wrinkles.


I hope this helps and it's not the "end-all" of how to achieve this effect. Using different "layer modes" to experiment with the final step is suggested.

thanks for the vid. and where did you get the GIMP clock from?

You should be able to find it here... viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3472#p43876

great tutorial, very easy to follow.

Thanks. Yeah, it's not that hard of a tut.

I was only using the word "depth-map" to try to have a connection to what the bump-map layer may have looked like. I could have used other words to explain it , but the tut was done on the spurt of the moment. Without much if any planning, and that was the word I chose.
I do agree that the function of a depth-map is something completely different from what the tutorial is about.

I've also been making red/cyan 3D anaglyphs for some time now, and have made many a depth-map to aid me in my conversion of 2D images into red/cyan 3D anaglyph images.
That too is lots of fun.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

Very cool!
I'll try to reproduce this technique, the result came out pretty nice and seem easy to follow steps!
Thanks for the tutorial!

Yes a tutorial on how I do it could be interesting. That would have to be a well planed tutorial.
There's a GMic filter that I've used, that employes using an individual depth-map to create a red/cyan 3D anaglyph from a 2D image. Most were made with Gimp and some with PS.
I made a lot of them. If your interested, here's a link to my DA anaglyph gallery... http://geosammy.deviantart.com/gallery/34447420


Thanks and you're welcome.

Nice tutorial Wallace, The only thing I would mention is that you moved your skull image after the displacement and this would put the T-shirt wrinkles and the skull wrinkles out of sync with each other.

But with that aside well explained and easy enough to follow.

Yeah, you know you're right.
I don't know why I did that. Maybe I thought it looked out of position or something. Hmmm...

I have a simple question...I hope...Do you have to save the image in cmyk form or does it depend on the ppi to print on a shirt?

There seems to be a great deal of confusion out there regarding the use of some terms in digital imaging. One of the more common sources of confusion is the difference between DPI and PPI. The main problem with this is that DPI (dots per inch) is an old term that has been applied to everything relating to resolution and the size of a digital image. This is very confusing because different situations work with resolution in very different ways, and having a single term for all of them just makes things more confusing. More recently, the term PPI (pixels per inch) has appeared in common usage and is far more specific for what the term entails. DPI is still used in some documents and software when PPI is really what they mean, but this is changing. I'm going to attempt to explain what the 2 terms mean and how they should be used.

Hold on to your hat.

I'd say no, you don't have to save it in cmyk format. However, I would recommend that it be saved with transparency intact and at a resolution of at least 300 ppi.
Let's start with PPI, it's easy to understand. This is the number of pixels per inch in your image. This will affect the print size of your photo and will affect the quality of the output. The way that it will affect the quality of the output is that if there are too few pixels per inch, then the pixels will be very large and you will get a very pixelated image (jagged edges, you will actually see individual pixels, not good). You'll hear various different numbers thrown around as to what an acceptable PPI for a print-out is. A lot of this will depend on the size of the print. This is because you look at large prints from a further distance than a small print, so you can get away with a lower PPI and still have the image look fine.

All that PPI does is affect the print size of the image. There are 2 ways that you can change the print size, by resampling or by not resampling. Not resampling is what you normally want to do, this will only change the size of the print. Using resampling will actually change the number of pixels (and thus the file size) in order to match the print size. So for instance, if you don't resample, changing the PPI setting will increase or decrease the print size (it will increase if you drop the PPI, it will decrease if you increase the PPI). With resampling, if you change the PPI, you will loose pixels (if you set the PPI to a lower value) or you will have pixels created (if you increase the PPI). Creating pixels is a bad idea, they get generated by the computer and the results aren't usually that good. Throwing away pixels is fine as long as you won't need the bigger size later (that's why it's usually a good idea to save the original large file).

Let's suppose you have a 100 x 100 pixel image, it could be printed at many different sizes. If you set the image to print at 10 PPI, then you'd have a 10" x 10" image. If you set the image to print at 100 PPI, you'd have a 1" x 1" image. Note that adjusting this value doesn't effect the number of pixels in the image at all, it just changes how big the print will be.

Take our 100 x 100 pixel image again. Suppose it's set at 100 PPI (producing the same 1" x 1" printed image). With re-sampling off, when you adjust the PPI the dimensions adjust as well, this is how things worked in the example above. With re-sampling on, the dimensions won't change. So, if you changed the PPI to 10 with re-sampling on, you would still keep a 1" x 1" image and the computer would throw out pixels to make the image stay that size. So in this case, you'd end up with a 10 x 10 pixel image in the end. If you went the other way, and changed the PPI to 300, then the computer would generate pixels to make a 300 x 300 pixel image that's still 1" x 1" when printed.

Usually, the only reason you want to use re-sampling is for reducing the size of your image. For example, my scanner produces 3888 x 2592 images. These images are too big to use online (both for display and because of file size). By using re-sampling, I can adjust the size of the images to something more appropriate for online use.

Now let's talk about DPI. DPI only refers to the printer. Every pixel output is made up of different colored inks (usually 4-6 colors, although many printers use more now). Because of the small number of colors, the printer needs to be able to mix these inks to make up all the colors of the image. So each pixel of the image is created by a series of tiny dots (you could think of them as sub-pixels). Generally, the higher the DPI, the better the tonality of the image, colors should look better and blends between colors should be smoother. You'll also use more ink and the print job will be slower. You might want to try setting your printer to a lower DPI to save ink and speed up the job, see if you notice any difference in quality. The lowest setting where you don't see any loss in quality should be the best one to use.

So a 1200 dpi printer uses 1200 dots of ink in every inch to make up the colors. If you were printing a 300 PPI image, then every pixel would be made up of 16 smaller ink dots (1200 DPI x 1200 DPI / 300 PPI x 300 PPI). A lower DPI would have fewer ink dots making up each pixel, which would make the color look worse. A higher DPI would have more ink dots for each pixel and should give more accurate color (especially under close examination).

Simple question, right?

Disclaimer: I do not pretend to be an expert. I'm merely a slightly more educated novice.

LOL...Well I thought it was simple. Thank you very much.

Sorry for being so long winded. I hope that I answered your question.

No you weren't long winded at all. I appreciate you taken your time to explain it to me. If I understand correctly as long as I start out with 300 ppi I should be ok and just check the dpi by starting out with 300 dpi but lowering it for best quality and saving ink.

You got it.

Woo Hoo! Thank you Wallace.