To mesh or not to mesh 10: reviewing mock filet designs

One of the many differences between automated machine-knit transfer lace and hand-knit lace is that the alternate direction of transfers in machine-knit lace occurs after the first is completed and followed by knit rows separating the eyelets, so there is always a slight shift in horizontal lines formed by them.
In hand-knitting or when stitches are manually transferred in both directions on the machine before knitting any additional rows, the appearance is noticeably different to purists and closer to hand-knit.
To truly match some of the transfers, stitches need to be removed from their respective needles, and other stitches are placed on the empty needles before the removed stitch is restored to its place. That is not an automatic function, but an added hand technique.
Changes in aspect ratio are often accompany knit structures and are seen in lace as well, more noticeable when one begins to use representational motifs, as in these recent cases, flowers.
There are so many sources available for designs, one need not necessarily build motifs from scratch, and they can be made more personal with modifications.
After choosing the base mesh, math may be used to change the scale of the superimposed shape.
Using small designs to test differences in results, one way to simply change the result is to multiply the height of the original shape by X3, with or without also doubling its width, thus approaching the 4X6 ratio often attributed to knit stitches other than garter.
The designs are programmed as fair isle in electronic models, which often automatically mirror the design horizontally.
Ways to modify electronic and punch card published transfer lace designs 6/26 returned to a partial image of a card used in 2011 as a mock filet mesh with traditional LC operation from the left side.
For the bse mesh, the LC makes 2 passes for transfers to the left, 4 passes for transfers to the right, each sequence is followed by two knit rows using the knit carriage operating from the right.
With the punchard located, the repeat was rebuilt using Mac Numbers, and a combination of ArahPaint and Gimp to reproduce the 24X162 file as a PNG. A 24X84 segment was, in turn, isolated, drawn in brick repeat, 24X168. The swatch, tested on 60 stitches, helps to determine whether other DIY arrangements, i.e., widening the repeat or altering the edges of the shapes for use only on electronic machines, should be made.
For some reason, the yarn used, which had posed no problem in recent swatches, was particularly cranky in transfers. The swatch has several dropped stitches.Using a random flower design from a published source, 18X20 multiplied X2 in height and width, 36X40 4X6 brush fill to use as a background on a 60X60 canvas offers 2 choices, one can be to copy and paste the enlarged flower onto the mesh grid with the white color to alpha, the other to lock the magenta color, and superimpose copy and paste the 60X60 mesh ground file onto it, not anchoring it in place until the preferred position is found.
36X40 The magenta shape is then bucket-filled with white.
Either method will require some cleanup to reach a programmable, final file size. In this case, for a 60X60 BW PNG.
When tested and drawn in repeat, followed by the decision to bring flower shapes closer together, cropping the design to 44X60 with a couple of shifted pixels in the center of the flower to keep the direction of all transfers the same across horizontal eyelet rows, and then tested. Different distribution of the shapes: an untested brick repeat, 44X120, and a half drop 88X60. Changing the aspect ratio of the flower, an 18X20 slightly different design is multiplied in width by 2, in height by 3, to 36X60, and superimposed on the 60X60 mesh ground with magenta bucket filled with white, the tested repeat cropped to 48X60, produces a slight change in overall appearance, adding the change in scale to the list of potential choices in DIY designs, if larger repeats are preferred, this previews the brick version, but the half drop needs work. Early Brother electronic machines, i.e., the 910s, used mylar sheets.
Any programmed design was automatically mirrored horizontally to avoid having images, i.e., text, appear in the wrong orientation on the knit face. When looking at images that accompany files, the direction of the motifs in the program is the mirror of those shared in the accompanying swatch.
The charted image is what appears on the purl side, facing the knitter.
Some download programs will automatically mirror any file, adding to confusion as to whether that is required in some instances.
A way to test whether mirroring is again required in your software/machine model is to program the desired mesh, knit a small swatch, and there should be no side-by-side needle selection.
A simple button selection on electronic models can flip the image horizontally if needed. My preference is to alter the PNG and save it before programming it, to avoid errors in larger pieces, or later returns to the design, since I am not always the best note keeper.
From Brother Electroknit Lace Patterns 3, two larger-scale patterns that are published on a rectangular grid show the mirroring of the design in the final knit and the change in aspect ratio.
Conversions to BW PNGs

60X132120X132
The appearance of the edges of the knit stitch shapes takes on the more familiar look of their edges as seen in my own shared designs.
60X120
120X120 Ancient magazines are easily found online for browsing and inspiration.
Now tired of flowers, this Knitking magazine published a pattern that included a sailboat design, which caught my eye. Visually, the card offered clues as to a possible problem with the mesh ground, but initially, the only change that was made was to the starting row, as seen on the BW chart on the right.Additional clues are also in the tiled 24X56 PNG, and here are those knit stripes breaking up the ground behind the sails. It is not possible to know whether errata were ever published for the card, or whether the outfit may even have been knit on an electronic model.
If there is a fondness for the design, the background can be adjusted to maintain a consistent mesh while keeping the punch card 24 stitch constraint.
A close-up of the garment’s texture. The new 24X54 mirrored design attempting to duplicate it. The result allows for a closer look at eyelet placements and further editing based on their distribution if desired. Some of the historically related posts:
To mesh or not to mesh 15/11 To mesh or not to mesh 2 5/11