User talk:Ezekial Riddle/Projects/Maps Clean up

Quality

By #4, you can see all the detail you would really need for navigating, including easily distinguishing terrain from shadows from objects. I think most computers these days don't have a problem with even the high quality ones (heck, I downloaded this display page without a blip), but there are of course exceptions. I think #3 is slightly too badly detailed to be totally clear, and I think the majority wouldn't pick my choice (#6), so I think #4 is a great medium.
Would there be any benefit in photoediting a simple "Enhance contrast" to make it more vivid without upping quality? | 72 (UTC) 03:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I think 20 quality is already adequate for the level of detail and type of expected use, and 40 is probably a perfectly reasonable tradeoff. I don't see any real need to spend storage and bandwidth on 100 quality. --DryHumour 03:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with 40. | 72 (UTC) 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To address your "Enhance contrast" method: I prefer the method that I used because there are just some spots on the map that can't be accessed by normal player means (i.e. neither Texmod nor .dat mining). For example, in Dalada Uplands and Grothmar Wardowns, it's all but impossible to map the southern half of the Dragon (Kralkatorak or whatever it's name is). However, we can get that dragon by ripping the Textures through Texmod or by .dat digging (though the former method, I find, is substantially easier). --RIDDLE 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall doing something like this. Photoshop uses standard JPEG quality, not saved for internet, so it goes on a scale from 0 to 12 instead of 0 to 100, but I used 8/12 on some of the ones I've done (examples here, here and here). I swear I did one of the area you used as an example, but I guess I can't find it. –Jette 09:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For quality I think image 3 is the minimum quality to look for, and 4 is quite nice. Maybe go for 50/100? That's roughly 67KB according to Photoshop. Just looking at the Dalada one, the tree areas looks...iffy...compared to what we see in-game. Would it maybe be possible to use the outpost/town icons for the towns/outposts, for the sake of having a link between what the image looks like and in-game? ~Celestia 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I could use the in-game icons. I was trying to achieve the most visibility of the region, so I decided to only use text and use it on areas that were off the region. --RIDDLE 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope

How broad a scope were you thinking of taking with this project? I'd certainly love to see full collector and boss maps put together, particularly for the earlier campaigns and regions, where they tend to be lacking currently. I'd be happy to pitch in and help out with that, if it's seen as worthwhile. (Ideally, I'd need copies of the glyphs and fonts used on the later maps; does anyone know where they're to be found?) --DryHumour 03:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to go through and redo just the regional maps. If you want, I can give you copies of maps that don't have text on them, once I start churning them out. --RIDDLE 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I wish I had retained the original maps I was using to make the cartography mod. I could have saved you a couple hours of pulling textures. All I've got are the ones already blacked out, but I'd be happy to share the batch if you're interested.--Pyron Sy 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad everything cant' be 100% and lossless

but then again I have tons of hard drives. Previously Unsigned 03:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's more a question of unnecessary network bandwidth than local storage. --DryHumour 03:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but I was also saying if everything was as high quality as it could be eventually it would balloon as well. Previously Unsigned 20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The week, in review

Just to bump the discussion and focus the past week's efforts into one spot:

• People seem to be in favor of the 40 or 60 quality, or anywhere in between, though I've seen as high as 80 and as low as 20.
• This project could possibly go beyond more than just Area Maps (i.e. Collector's Maps, Boss Maps, etc.)
  

--RIDDLE 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Totals

My only real concern is the total 'weight' of the article. So I can't give an answer for any given image: it would depend on how much else is on the page. Other than that, higer quality is ofc better. Tho', there is no point in not using .pngs for the higher levels. Backsword 07:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be solved by |thumb'ing the images while on articles?--Fighterdoken 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)