Ohh maaan..
I'm afraid i haveto give in and ask my first question.
How do one go small and create knobs like these?
40 to 60-ich px max like these.
Can anyone re-create these with Gimp as close as possible?
Quick thoughts back of my head:
I do remember doing a "plus/cross-thing" black on a white BG, and blur that and use the unsharp mask or brightness and contrast, it will not be round, sort of retro roland knob shapes if i would maby duplicate and rotate that abit? and if you use this tut also, one might get close?
Or, same thing but completelly round and then add small selections with small feathering circles strategically placed around the knob and then darken or erase, hope you know what i mean, anyway, the knobs on the picture is what i'm looking for, absolutelly.
Ps: hope it's Ok i ask here without creating a new topic.

fluffy! thank you!
A combo of this tut and your links and, minor tweaks should do the trick.
Exellent!

Ludde,

You posts were split into a new thread because you will get better answers to your questions in a separate thread. You also don't want to hijack another member's thread with questions that are off topic from their thread.

We routinely move, split and merge threads here on Gimp Chat. We try to ensure everything we do is for the benefit of our members. I hope you understand.

We felt this topic (creating knobs) deserved its own thread.

Right, so!.. where was i..

My question is very much about what is the best methods of dealing with small stuff, and on top of that, round, and, some details in it.
I tryed Googeling for a good example and i found one, the one i posted.
Good example because i figure, if i can do this, then i can pretty much do everything else ive got in my wierdo mind.

Making Ableton UI i could do, including the round knobs, and sharp as heck, np.
But thats Ableton, hello.

And i can't make a DAW-knob larger then 40 <> 60-ich because my estimated best width for each mixer panel is 112px and i need 16tracks visible, right?, Ok.

Some chit-chat about this p l e a s e.

Is there mabe some downscaling methods i need to know about, recommendations, because larger is easyer and nicer to work on, for me atleast.
Like for example: if i intend to do a 50px knob in the end knowing this from start, should i maby choose some mathemathical sweetspot in size before downscaling, like "offcaurse!" 100px/twize is best and then this xxxxx-filter on that on that you might say, etc.

Or you can say, nononoNO! moron, pros don't work like that, learn what works and looks nice, downscaling is always bad, period. hehe
What do you think?

Build it like you would physically build it, one component at a time. Scale when you piece it together.

looking at Drac's tutorial i wonder if these knobs are better done in Inkscape
then you can scale them all the way you want and size isnt a problem

Odin, i'll think about that.
I would work with layers normaly but now when you mention it, when i experiment quick to get a rough idea from my head, i sometime forget that this might be extra imortant and i don't, lazy way.
I'll burn that too my memorie, thank you.

Esper, do you mean because the engine/tech is better evolved in IS maby?
My images needs to be saved as .png btw, forgot to say that.

My mind have been loyal to Gimp for some reason i have not even considered using other stuff.
And offcaurse i'm more used to Gimp, only tryed IS onse or twize long ago.
I'll reconsider this as an option for this purpose then if i haveto, i'll try it and see for myself later, thanks.

well its vector-based, so scaling is the thing it can do better than Gimp

And this translates into .png well then?
Thought stuff like that was for websites and stuff. :*)

growing and shrinking circular selections always leads to certain problems in Gimp
because Gimp is painting around a selection and thus you get more and more jagged edges

it has nothing to do with png, thats just the format you export your picture

EDIT:
i think you should just try Draconian's tutorial and i guess you have to work at a bigger size and then downscale as you already guessed
the tut uses a canvas of 500x500px, that seems okay to me - it may be a bit big but then again its a good size to work with

Ohh man, ive been missing out.
And none of you will be offended if i get a second editor? ok then
Ashame Gimp don't "have it all" so clooose it's not even funny, from my point of view and needs offcaurse and maby not the devs.

Esper edit so my theory that one should choose a fixed multiple sweetspot i can put it the trashcan?
And when scaling this kind of image, digital art or what to call it, what resize filter or/and setting is most suitable you think?
You bet i will, i will download all i can find about this kind of work.

Edit: i'm talking about Gimp this time, i'll try IS tomorrow and do resultstests.
I'll know then what is what, just wanted to know optimal user strategy for Gimp scaling so i make a fair conclusion, tomorrow.

For scaling info, check this post.
Also, here is a nice and quick two page overview of Resampling Methods (PDF).

Odin!! now we are talking! your link to the post is containing valuable info about this and all that kind of talk gave me goosebumps almost.
Love it!

Thanks you All! I sure have some experiments to try now.
I'll try to come up with more questions, i'll try..

And that did take like what.. 1 minute? lol
Is GMIC better in terms of quality in any way?
Does it a better job then the Gimp native filter counterparts in general.
Like with GEGL, i don't care so much about the speed, just the preview and if quality is impooved is always good but is it?
Any reason for me to ignore native Gimp filters if i find a GMIC or GEGL one in terms of quality?
Could be a stupid question but i don't care.

Ps. Might seem semi off topic this one, not sure yet.
If so, just answer about the scaling then into this.

And thats it for today.

If your already using G'MIC for a task that includes say, layer modes, blurs, resize using them makes sense. Generally if you just need to use layer modes, blurs or resize, for consistency, I would give priority to the Gimp tools. A tool name doesn't write the algorithm.

Ahh ha, another reason i figure would be that GMIC is more updated with its filters, like stuff like that was is a factor.
That is, different code, algorithm, what ever, like someone just improved a script.
So filters never improve, just add or remove functions, everything is behaving the same and my choice is practical, not quality.
Is this correct?

Thanks for today guys.

Don't get me wrong, G'MIC has tons of tools that are awesome and filter do change and improve. Experimenting with choices is the best part.