Jarvis dithering

In the workflow

Why Jarvis dithering matters

It often creates smooth photographic transitions, but the broader pattern is not automatically best for every size and material.

Practical check

How to evaluate it

Compare Jarvis with Floyd-Steinberg and Stucki using the same source, size, and DPI. Inspect smooth skin or sky transitions alongside fine edges before selecting it for a material test.

See the pixels

Jarvis dithering, shown on the same portrait

Jarvis-Judice-Ninke spreads error across a wider neighborhood than Floyd-Steinberg. The detail crop shows how the same cheek tones become a different arrangement of dots; the gray input has not changed.

Floyd-SteinbergJarvisStucki

Full portraitDetail crop

Jarvis: Compare the cheek's midtones with Stucki while keeping the eye and eyebrow edges in view.

Matching 200 × 200-pixel crops, taken after the full images were dithered. Previews fit your screen. Open a downloaded PNG at 100% to inspect the actual pixels.

Computed bitmap examples from EngravePrep's bundled sample portrait. These are not physical engraving results or a material recommendation.

Download the full-size PNGs

• Grayscale source
• Floyd-Steinberg
• Jarvis
• Stucki

600 × 750 pixels · 300 DPI metadata · 2 × 2.5 inches at that DPI

A smoother-looking screen preview does not establish a better engraving. Check whether your tested process keeps nearby dots separate before choosing Jarvis for the final piece.

See the complete comparison and how the examples were made.