Why is this shit so bad at handling high resolution?
Any way to improve it?
Does Photoshop choke this hard too? or is this just a CSP Thing, post what art software you use.
Art software discussion I guess.

>>7654241 (OP)
are you sure its not an hardware issue?

>>7654241 (OP)
CSP has a huge issue of not being programmed to work on multiple threads, instead it uses only one core, even if you have a multicore monster.
This really sucks. I usually don't have issues unless I work with more than 20-30 layers or something, and even then it's only with very complex brushes which I use rarely. I limit my canvas to 4K x 6K pixels.

Works on my machine

>>7654263
I mean, I have a R5 3600, which is a bit old by now but still very serviceable for most stuff.
Also its funny how CSP is included in the "Nvidia Accelerated apps" yet makes 0 use of my 3090.

>>7654272
professionals use sai2 for being fast and efficient. Zero lag even on potato hardware. Just use CSP for touch up lmao.

>>7654241 (OP)
why do so many retards draw with maxed resolution?

>>7654280
How does Sai2 compare against CSP? Do you use it?

>>7654280
no they don't you stupid cunt. you will not find a single studio anywhere with shittool sai.

>>7654241 (OP)
That's csp problem like how the zoom in/zoom out didnt feel smooth at all. People have been complaining about that for years, but I think csp said that they want to preserve the software so that it could run on older system as well

>>7654241 (OP)
>Does Photoshop choke this hard too?
Unfortunately yes. I use PS a lot despite also having CSP and sometimes the program suddenly starts lagging really bad and I check task manager and its using 85% of my memory and 30% of my CPU. This is despite me having a custom gaming rig I built myself as well as making adjustments in PS's settings as per internet recommendations. This effect gets worse the higher the resolution of the canvas I am drawing on, especially once I go past 2500x2500.

I mean, what is high resolution for you? Lmao. When I first started painting I thought every single thing I made had to be like 8000x8000 or some shit because I was a retard. You can make great art sticking around the 2000x2000 range, even 1000x1000 is passable for some applications. I did a lot of my art on a 1060 6gb mobile laptop, the canvases would be fine up until 5000x5000 range on photoshop and at that point get pretty laggy, but drawing at that high of a resolution was pretty unecessary and often time I'd just reduce image size at the end because a file of that resolution is impractical. Your hardware is the issue, but, extremely high resolutions are also retarded unless you're creating illustrations at a high int/adv/pro level

>>7654241 (OP)
CSP has no hardware acceleration for rendering and brushes, the only thing it's used for is stylus tracking. So all your giant brushes are running entirely on the CPU.

It's ass desu, but beats photoshop prices.

>>7654265
>4K x 6K pixels
There zero reason for this.

>>7654965
There is, actually. If you're painting anything reasonably detailed it's required so you aren't using sub-pixel brushes. Especially with things like thin lineart, which at web resolutions end up sub-pixel.

>>7654972
I don't think so, Tim

>>7654241 (OP)
Why does the text tool lag when you have more than 2 sentences written? Why are the alignment options so garbage? I have to manually align boxes and text up by zooming in to 400% and moving things over one pixel at a time, and then creatng an extra layer with a 1px straight line that I can use set to low opacity and use for aligning objects that are too far apart, until I get them just right. It's immensely time consuming

>>7654272
>It's been 20 years since the Ryzen 5 3600 came out
Where does time go?

>>7654280
if you mean professionals that draw nonce anime shit, then yes

>>7654241 (OP)
i always use photoshop

>>7654280
Have you tried azpainter?

>>7654280
her right shoulder bothers me

>>7655133
no csp user likes that they're subscription now, they made a whole stink of it when they announced the change

>>7655133
Subscription Model, Japan is 1/10th the price, so whatever.

>>7654965
1. My clients sometimes like to print the stuff I draw for them.
2. I have a Patreon and post Hi-res artworks as rewards.
3. I can be more sloppy with my linework, coloring, rendering etc. if I draw at hi-res and then scale it down.

>>7654281
is this cope because you have shitty hardware?
also what exactly is maxed resolution? CSP doesn't have a resolution limit.

>>7655133
CSP is a one-time purchase. The subscription only adds weird experimental features among other shit that nobody needs.
There is no reason to use Photoshop past CS6 and the .dll file to upgrade for free can be found absolutely everywhere online.

>>7656300
You're hilarious if you think drawing at insane resolution is the answer to anything you just listed. 5100x3300 at 300 dpi is pretty much the largest you would ever need to do. If you need a larger print than that, learn what vector art is.

>>7656900
>5100x3300 at 300 dpi is pretty much the largest you would ever need to do.
For what, exactly?

Mr. Expert, I'd like to see what kind of shit you're drawing while your ass is out here talking like an authority on anything. Pyw.

>>7656900
People would much larger than that for digital manga
idk why you choose to be a dunning kruger over canvas resolution

>>7656930
Doesn’t CSP come with default settings for mangas? Do you even need to change anything? Are you larping?

>>7656932
none of that detracts from the fact mangakas work at a higher resolution than the anon said

>>7656932
The csp default manga setting for print is about 6000x8000?

>>7656932
The CSP default is larger than >>7656900, and publishers actually even larger than that.
That said, I personally don't notice much major lag drawing on a 6kx8k canvas unless I've copypasted and blown up a bunch of images on the canvas. But, I'm not a painter, so I don't have to worry about large complex brushes lagging. The program is completely fine for what it was originally made for: manga. It has its issues for other stuff.

>>7656900
>resolution
>dpi

>>7656932
Nigger you're larping. Manga is generally going to be 600 or 1200 dpi unless its in color. It depends on what screentones you have anyways, the lowest you can get for CSP is 350 dpi so you're wrong there too.

When you're working with print instead of just web shit it needs to be much higher resolution (but ofc you wouldn't know that) depending on final print size and viewing distance. No, just 300 max isn't enough, that shit is below the bare minimum. 300 might be your max for digital art and only if you have zero hard drive space or a trash computer. The presets you're talking about anyways are physical paper measurements like "letter" or "A5". The dpi just hangs out at whatever you have it set to until you change it. You never even clicked on the dpi dropdown, or youd have seen what else is suggested there. If all anyone needed was 300, why the fuck is 1200 there?

"5100 x 3300 at 300 dpi" is only 17" × 11" (what the fuck did you even choose that weird-ass size for, retard?) What if I'm making an 18x24 poster, oh nooooo oops anon told me everyone only needs 11x17 at 300 dpi at most, sorry boss, its gonna be pixelated when you print it and its gonna look like ASS! Dont worry boss, I made it with vectors! But I still exported it at this retard size so its still fucking pixelated yaaaayy

>learn what vector art is
What does vector art even have to do with anything? You're just throwing out whatever buzzwords you can think of in a desperate attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about. CSP lets you use vectors whenever you want, but vectors look like shit when you are over here exporting it out and rasterizing it fucking 5 times smaller than you need it to be.

You don't know shit, you don't draw shit, shut the fuck up midwit retard, go back to whatever reddit sub you crawled out of.

You want to keep talking? Great, post your fucking work to prove to us that you're not a retard (protip: you can't and won't, you don't draw shit)
>inb4 excuses

>>7656958
Shhhh don't tell him. It's funnier this way.

>>7656900
>100x3300 at 300 dpi
The sole fact that you put dpi next to a pixels dimension tells me you have no idea what you're talking about lol.
Also, why the specific dimensions? Are you autistic or something?

>>7656900
>If you need a larger print than that, learn what vector art is.
LMAO, missed this pearl of wisdom.
I use raster programs, because they better simulate trad, both in terms of looks and drawing method.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You dunning kruger begtards are seriously insufferable.

>>7656970
Bro just has a boner for ledger paper

>>7656967
I've just witnessed a murder

>>7656976
lol
To me the most funny part is that while I mentioned 6k x 4k the guy flips out saying these are insane numbers and then casually mentions something that is 15% smaller LMAO.

>>7656967
Dude, you are speaking in inches here. You're giving this mongo way too much credit lol.

>>7656986
It's gotta be that or the pixels and dpi for me, man. "Muh vectors" was pretty good too though.

>>7656935
>>7656937
>>7656953
>>7656967
Hooooly shit kek

>>7654241 (OP)
>Why is this shit so bad at handling high resolution?
>Any way to improve it?
Get a better computer

>>7656967
>I made it with vectors! But I still exported it at this retard size so its still fucking pixelated
You have no idea what a vector is...

>>7657437
Okay anon, pop quiz time, what happens when you export a vector as a low res PNG?

>>7654241 (OP)
>Finally got a Ryzen 5
>Still slow and laggy with it's brushes pausing for 2 seconds
>Still pauses between actions

Fucking japs and their "Getto uso to it to" mantra.

>>7657658
>Expecting low perfomance multi-core processors to help with a single-core program
Kek

>>7654280
And none of the efficent tools from CSP, let alone the user interface and the layer customization for brushes or the keybinds, or the good sketch and G-Pen brushes, or grids, or the intuitive layer management or canvas resizing.

On the pro side it has buttery smooth vector line tools and pixel perfect algorythm.

>>7654741
Then why hasn't somebody hack this damn program and fixed it?

>>7657665
>>7657658
To illustrate, this is what the options for good CSP CPUs look like. They're either expensive or the shittiest trash you've ever had the misfortune of using.

>>7654702
it's the hallmark of a beginner to create absurdly large canvases and fill them with mediocre art

>>7657684
>Could only finally afford a Ryzen 5 4500 now because it was mispriced at a shitty Mexican site.

FUCK.

>>7657689
AMD fags once again destroyed by Intel rapists

>>7657686
Narrowminded take or bait.

>>7657762
Tell me, what use does a beginner have for a high resolution canvas other than ignorance? They don't know how to resize to benefit from higher resolution while still being compatible with web formats. If they're creating for physical mediums they wouldn't even know to change the color space to CMYK. A beginner digital artist doesn't understand the why behind resolution, dpi, color space, etc. It's why it's so common to see beginner digital artists with absurdly high resolutions, because in their minds, bigger number is better.

>>7657773
I was implying your take addresses only a certain demographic. That's why it's narrowminded.
People in here explained several reasons why hi resolutions can be useful. Why are you obsessing over some begs?

>>7657848
Bro's mad he got mogged twice in one thread.

it's hilarious seeing people itt having an aneurysm over someone saying dpi when it's a standard term that even programs like csp use. ppi and dpi are used interchangeably.
as for canvas size, use whatever you want, but I do notice a LOT of begs use massive canvases for some reason.
Most of my art is drawn at 2400x3000 300dpi, I average $3k-4k/month. I only go bigger if I have to for bigger prints.
also for the dude shitting on vector art for some reason, what if your client wants you to do art for like a billboard or car or store window? Are you gonna just use a 80k pixel canvas like a fucking psychopath? How about if someone wants a logo? Raster and vector art both have their use cases.

>>7657876
>ppi and dpi are used interchangeably
Nah they aren't, except for /beg/ digital artists.

>>7657876
PPI and DPI are more or less interchangeable. PPI/DPI and Resolution, are not.

>>7654265
what do you use instead for larger canvases? or do you just limit layers?

>>7657904
who used dpi and resolution interchangeably?
>>7657898
don't respond to me, retard

>>7657956
nevermind what the fuck
>>7656900
>5100x3300 at 300 dpi

>>7657961
Kek you found him

>>7657939
It's not that bad if you use brushes made for CSP. Photoshop brushes often have giant ass textures attached to them.

>>7657974
yeah I got nothing, just age old dunning kruger shit.

>>7657848
What are you talking about? I made a point specifically about beginners. I didn't make a blanket statement about all high resolution canvas

>>7657975
Photoshop becoming an illustration tool is largely because of its power features and place in the adobe ecosystem. The program itself has pretty shit brush and painting tools. I say this as someone who primarily uses photoshop. Sometimes I wish they could just tear out the foundation and rework some parts and it'd be the perfect illustration tool.

Whats more important for digital art then?
Bigger canvas or Higher DPI? im a bit confused now.

>>7656958
>>7656969
You might not realize this but CSP actually does translate DPI to resolution. If your units are set to pixels it will act normally and ignore DPI in relation to canvas size, but otherwise it will convert the units into pixel dimensions automatically.
So, for example, you hit new canvas. You have the units set to mm. You select the B4 600 DPI monochrome preset, a 297x420mm canvas. You load it up. If you check the canvas properties, you can see that the dimensions are 7017x9921 pixels. So you draw something on it, and then decide you don't need the canvas to be so big. So you drop the DPI down to 300. You check the canvas properties again and you'll see that the canvas is now 3508x4961.
If you had the units set to pixels when changing the DPI, it would not have changed the dimensions of the canvas.

So while in most contexts, talking about DPI in relation to the size of a digital drawing doesn't really mean anything, in the context of CSP in particular it absolutely can be relevant.

>>7658056
Oi, mate, looky this here. A real dunnykru out in the wild. Facinating. Might have a bit of trouble telling these guys from the trolls, but this is definitely a dunnykru. These little guys can type an astonishing number of words, and not understand any of them! He might seem harmless, but watch out, these guys can do an absolute number on a /beg/ if they're not careful.

>>7658032
dpi is irrelevant for purely digital images. It only matters when you go to print something, it means how many dots there are in an inch.
something that's 2400x3000 pixels printed at 300dpi will be 8"x10"
If it's printed at 600 dpi, it would be 4"x5". In order to have an 8x10 printed at 600 dpi, you would need to go up to 4800x6000 pixels

Basically dpi is just print resolution. An 8x10 printed at 600dpi would be like a 4k 24" monitor, while an 8x10 printed at 300 dpi would be like a 1080p 24" monitor.

Hopefully that explains it decently.

>>7658086
You could just check this yourself instead of writing embarrassing passive-aggressive owns. I didn't pull those numbers out of my ass, I used a specific, reproducible example for a reason. Don't believe me, go try it.

>>7654965
Professionals go much higher than that, then scale down the final image.

>>7658086
he's completely right though. If you're using the preset paper sizes, you change your resolution with dpi.

>>7655133
For some reason, the hard round opacity brush on CSP works much much better.
If only CPS didn't lag, even on simple brushes, unlike Photoshop.

I didn't expect there to be so much confusion with a concept as simple as dpi honestly.

>>7658100
Check which part? The part where you chose B4 and then changed the dimensions to A3? Or the part where you said CSP did some thing special with DPI and then proceeded to explain what literally every image software uses DPI for.

>>7658123
anon, just... stop. dpi is literally resolution. What he said was completely accurate.

>>7658123
Please stop replying to me.
>Or the part where you said CSP did some thing special with DPI and then proceeded to explain what literally every image software uses DPI for.
If other programs do this then it's news to me and just reinforces my point that DPI can be used as a substitute for digital resolution. So what are you even arguing about here?

>>7657939
>>7657975
What this anon said. I use pretty simple brushes, so they seldomly lag.

>>7658000
Yeah, my question was why are you addressing begs, given how most people in this thread know what they are talking about and are bashing one particular dunning kruger beglet that clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
Never mind anon. We're going in circles imo.

>>7658056
JFC, are you baiting, or do you have some kind of self degading kink?
DPI has nothing to do with resolution.
Do you even know what DPI means?

>>7658134
Wait wait wait. I think I get where you're coming from here. You think everyone is using "resolution" to mean how many pixels the thing has, abstractly. And not how many pixels the thing has directly. Resolution = Digital Resolution.

10px x 20px, is a resolution
300 DPI, is a print resolution
10px x 20px @ 300 DPI, is kooky nonsense

>>7658056
JFC, are you baiting, or do you have some kind of self degrading kink?
DPI means dot per inch. Why do you think the measuring unit here is inches? Because it's a meter to define PAPER size, not screen size.

Yes, if you change the DPI, this will obviously change your resolution as well, but mentioning pixel size of a canvas and adding DPI is complete utter nonsense. Do you understand this? Please, say you do.

>>7658154
>10px x 20px @ 300 DPI, is kooky nonsense
>>7658156
>but mentioning pixel size of a canvas and adding DPI is complete utter nonsense.
Maybe I should clarify that I'm not the anon who said this. I'm responding to the
>resolution
>dpi
>kek
post. Yes, it's silly to list them together, that I agree with. It's the notion that "DPI is irrelevant to digital canvases" part that I'm refuting. Maybe I misunderstood the part the guy I was quoting was making fun of, and the other anons talking about DPI having nothing to do with resolution reinforced that misunderstanding.

Are people in here seriously so fucking stupid that they engage in this conversation without knowing what they're talking about?
Anyone can fucking google what DPI is.

If you mention a resolution (which is in pixels), you don't need to say what your DPI settings are, since they don't matter.

A pixel resolution has NO DPI. DPI is just a convertion number that tells you how big your phisical pring will be if you use a certain resolution.

If your resolution is 1000x1000px and you print it at 300 dpi, then your print size is going to be 3.33" x 3.33"
1000x1000/300=3.33x3.33

Whoever says "my canvas is xy pixels @ xz DPI is a complete idiot.

>>7658147
>given how most people in this thread know what they are talking about
lol
lmao

Are people in here seriously so fucking stupid that they engage in this conversation without knowing what they're talking about?
Anyone can fucking google what DPI is.

If you mention a resolution (which is in pixels), you don't need to say what your DPI settings are, since they don't matter.

A pixel resolution has NO DPI. DPI is just a convertion number that tells you how big your phisical print is going to be if you use a certain pixel resolution.

If your resolution is 1000x1000px and you print it at 300 dpi, then your print size is going to be 3.33" x 3.33"
1000x1000/300=3.33x3.33

Whoever says "my canvas is xy pixels @ xz DPI is a complete idiot.
This guy for example >>7656900
A complete utter retard.

>>7658177
So far I've seen only one retard not understanding DPI, this one >>7656900
The person that is doing damage control.
While on the other hand there's several anons calling him out for being a dunning kruger retard.

>>7658165
DPI kinda doesn't have anything to do with (digital) resolution, practically. That changing your DPI changes the pixel resolution is a byproduct of changing from one system to another. It is not an intended use. You have your paper size, you have your DPI, display resolution is there, but it's irrelevant.

Like, sure yes, technically you can label temperature in calories per gram of water, but that's fucking dumb.

>>7658183
>So far I've seen only one retard not understanding DPI
>>7658086
lol
lmao

it's literally just print resolution. that's it. I dunno why this is so complicated.

>>7658207
>it's literally just print resolution. that's it. I dunno why this is so complicated.
I dunno, you tell me, damage control retard.

>>7658183
>The person that is doing damage control.
If you're referring to >>7658056 (me) then no, I'm a different anon. I don't know if that first guy is still around after getting piled on so hard.

>>7658187
>DPI kinda doesn't have anything to do with (digital) resolution, practically
And I'm saying it "kinda" does. Yes, practically. I find it more practical to click on my canvas properties, click on the DPI drop down and then click on the DPI I want when I want to halve or double the size of my canvas than to do a quick division/multiplication of the pixels on the canvas then type that in. I have a practical use for this because I ink at 600 DPI and export from 1200 DPI for screentones. For me, yes, DPI kinda does have something to do with digital resolution, and yes, it kinda is practical for me to think of the resolution of my canvases in terms of DPI.

Even ignoring me, there are plenty of (yes, mostly clueless beginners) who will talk about their canvas size with DPI as the basis, whether they understand it or not.
So I consider it useful to make it clear to people that yes, in this instance (which happens to be the default settings in CSP and thus the most likely setup for a clueless beginner) one CAN refer to DPI and pixel resolution interchangeably, and I made it quite clear several posts ago why and how.
You can call that dunning krueger and you can clutch to definitions of DPI on the assumption that I don't already know all this. I understand that that's easier, but it's beside my point. It doesn't make any difference to me or to a beginner asking if they should be drawing at 600 DPI or 144, because CSP will make it so that said beginner doesn't need to understand by automatically adjusting the canvas size with changes in DPI. I'm coming at this from the perspective of somebody who has gotten sick of explaining to beginners who ask me about this shit.

Anyone who uses CSP knows that changing the DPI changes the software image resolution and 1000x1000px 72DPI is not the same as 1000x1000px 300DPI. If you want to blame someone, blame celsys for making DPI function this way, but it must work since japs successfully use CSP to print their comics. This thread is just adobe rats in their adobe maze who don't realize they've been scammed into erroneously believing the world works a certain way

>>7658209
the fuck are you even talking about?

>>7658219
putting 1000x1000 72dpi or 1000x1000 600dpi makes literally no difference in CSP. Your canvas will be 1000x1000 regardless. dpi only changes resolution if your canvas dimensions are in real world measurements and not pixels.

>>7658219
Every fucking raster/drawing program uses the same concept.
You are talking nonsense.

>>7658228
Fuck off, autismo.

>>7658180
>>7658233
This.

>>7658212
>I use this thing in a dumb way so they're totally related

I am without speech. Speechless, even.

>It doesn't make any difference to me or to a beginner asking if they should be drawing at 600 DPI or 144

Well, it kinda does, because saying you're drawing at 600 DPI says exactly nothing about what the screen resolution is. CSP will not just intuit your paper dimensions with it's techno jap magic

>>7658238
>Well, it kinda does, because saying you're drawing at 600 DPI says exactly nothing about what the screen resolution is. CSP will not just intuit your paper dimensions with it's techno jap magic
When a beginner asks me "what should I draw on? is 300 DPI okay?" and I tell them "I just use the industry standard B4 600 DPI canvas" it tells the beginner what resolution they should be drawing on without bringing up an different units, which means I don't need to explain anything else to them. The beginner can just think "oh okay, I will click on the B4 preset and make it 600 DPI" and go on their merry way.

>I use this thing in a dumb way so they're totally related
Uncalled for man. That's hurtful. You hurt me.

>>7658247
Oh my god you're doing it. You're doing the exact thing I made fun of you for doing. Those poor /beg/s.

I hate this thread holy fuck all of you are mind numbingly stupid with like 1 or 2 exceptions

>>7658257
Uh.... B4 size at 600 dpi means it's a certain pixel size. Are you ok in the head, dunning kruger?

Imagine crashing out so bad you come back 3 times in one day to get mogged by the whole thread. I really think you must be jerking it to this.

>>7658238
>CSP will not just intuit your paper dimensions with it's techno jap magic
Kek CSP literally does exactly this

>>7654241 (OP)
draw on a actually good software

if I want to make b4 sized prints, why wouldn't I just put b4 and select 600 dpi?

>>7658328
Yeah, 600 or 1200 and then scale down to 600.

>>7658147
There are multiple people in this thread coming in at different times along with one faggot who's instigating. I was just pointing out why this is a retarded thing to get caught up on, because most users on this site don't have to be so obsessed with resolution. They're only ever going to create for the web format which doesn't need ridiculously high resolution canvases.

>>7658454
High resolution is still good for detail reasons even if you're planning on scaling it down. But using paper sizes for web is dumb regardless.

>>7658480
What if you want to draw for your 4k TV/ monitor?

So what fucking canvas do i use so my art doesn't look like shit?

>>7658480
Yes exactly, I remember having an aha moment when I realized while watching a lot of professional splash artists work, their art usually ranged around 6500x4000 which they would then scale down to your typical wallpaper resolutions. It made me feel retarded because as a beginner I believed that I needed massive canvases to fit in as much detail as I could, when the reality was I didn't actually know how to meaningfully use that resolution to create the illusion of detail, it was a waste of computer resources

>>7658454
>this is a retarded thing to get caught up on
Agreed, but the retard needed shaming for being stupid. He rears his ugly head a few days after he gets mogged. You have to play whack a mole with him or he'll get too brazen and spam the whole board all day.

>>7658491
What if you want to future proof your art so it looks good on 8k monitors?

>>7658491
I guess use 4k, but chances are you're probably not going to notice something that's half or even quarter res regardless.

>>7658516
Your art looks like dogshit so who cares
Want infinitely scaling art, that's what vector images are for

>>7658497
next try asking what brush should you use.
ask youself how long do you have to practice drawing in order for your art to not look like shit.

>>7657437
A vector becomes nothing but pixels when you export it to any format and resolution, retard.
For Vectors you do your job, export EXACTLY at the resolution and PPI you're asked for and print, and that guarantees that the funny lines on your monitor and the funny lines on the paper are the same.

>>7658545
>Your art looks like dogshit
Projecting :) Sorry your art looks like dogshit, anon!

What happened to this thread?

>>7659396
It was doomed the second anyone suggested to OP that his computer was shit and he went full dunning kruger crashout.

>>7658592
ok beglet.

>>7659404
OP Here.
The seething beg discussing about vectors wasn't me.

>>7659872
Kek so it triggered someone else entirely? Fucking hilarious.

>>7656300
>my clients
pyw or be branded a larper

>>7660086
>>7660403
Now post yours. I'd love to see why you're so insecure.

>>7660642
Based, retard mogged.