Printer Studio

[CCG Collector]

So, I went ahead and ordered some proxies printed using the italicized guidelines in the first post (start with 750x1050, pad to 822x1122) and nico21000's gold-bordered concepts as inspiration. They turned out quite well, IMO:


(examples of different card frames, as well as the reverse)


(comparison between proxy and original)

Some thoughts:
1) These are just quick mockups by me using the existing low-res MECCG card images and replacing the black borders with gold ones. I didn't darken or lighten them at all, and I'm pretty pleased with the results using the original brightness unchanged. Any graininess, pixelation, or color variation comes from the source images, not the printing process.
2) That being said, no one with any exposure at all to actual trading cards would be fooled by these. They're thicker, ever so slightly taller and wider (it's a struggle to inner sleeve them, and the card bends slightly to fit), and there's a weight and glossiness to them that's quite unlike original cards. If you're thinking about sleeving them, I'd say a single-sleeved proxy is roughly equivalent to a double-sleeved original in terms of fit and feel.
3) The gold borders and back are every bit as good as I had hoped. If someone does pursue more widespread proxy printing in the future, I think this would be a great way to go. The four card frames I chose (hero character, hero resource, minion resource, hazard) all looked excellent when bordered in gold.
4) Though the forum resizes them to fit your screen, the images in this post are quite large, so if you'd like a closer look, just right-click them and choose "Open image in new tab" (or your browser's equivalent).

[nico21000]

Nice ! Very interesting.

As I never saw cards from Printer Studio I'd say it's 'better than I expected'. The 'We Have Come to Kill' card side-to-side comparison makes pretty obvious who is who but it's probably not really self-speaking : you said you used the existing low-res scans, but which ones exactly ? The bests up to this day are (imo) the ones available on cardnum, but they look much darker than the original cards. Also, images in general are always darker than the originals once reprinted on a home inkjet printer but I don't know how it turns onto a professional laser printer. The final statement would of course be relevant only if the printed jpg/png file was generated directly from the physical card itself...

Any graininess, pixelation, or color variation comes from the source images, not the printing process.

I'm also quite sceptical at this statement : the 2nd picture shows a very grainy golden border, which shouldn't happen with so much strength if it was true, am I right ? (unless you did it intentionally for a better visual mix/uniformity ?)

[CCG Collector]

Any graininess, pixelation, or color variation comes from the source images, not the printing process.

I'm also quite sceptical at this statement : the 2nd picture shows a very grainy golden border, which shouldn't happen with so much strength if it was true, am I right ? (unless you did it intentionally for a better visual mix/uniformity ?)

Ah, I had overlooked that. At a glance, the border color looks quite uniform, but upon closer inspection, I definitely agree that there's a pattern where none existed in the original. For reference, here's the image I submitted for that card:



What I meant by the statement you quoted is that there are a lot of issues with the card face (like compression artifacts around the text or the deeper purple color) that weren't caused by the site, but by the source image. But you're right, there is certainly graininess that was introduced by the printing process that's easy to pick out if you're looking for it.