Storm king's thunder high resolution maps

[QuizicalWiz]

Can we possible request an UPGRADE for DOUBLE resolution maps for SKT , Some are very low resolution and are tactical maps on which combat will take place, and the GRID on a good number of SKT maps is in the BOOK at 10 ft squares. So it needs to be 4 times larger or "Double". I see allot of Major users OF FG making there own maps for SKT out of MAP utilities and importing them in. (Nightstone On ward) because 5ft grid and detail is needed.

Great product keep it up.

[Zacchaeus]

Generally maps are kept to a reasonably low resolution to avoid long delays for chaps with not great internet connections and download times. Also it depends on the maps provided. The Nightstone maps for example are teeny tiny things that I had to crop out of a larger map. If I had blown them up any further they would be completely useless. All the maps with 10' and 50' grids have an FG grid sized appropriately.

[Zacchaeus]

Just to put some of this in perspective (since this question comes up fairly often) I've had a look at the Nightstone map. It comes as a photoshop (.psd) file which weighs in at 30Mb. Once I crop out Nightstone that takes it down to 19Mb and the map measures approximately 1850x2750 pixels. At medium jpeg resolution this is approximately 700kb. The map was drawn as you say to a 10' grid which on the map is 40px on a side. So in order to scale that up I need to multiply those dimensions by 250% in order that the map equates to a 50px grid representing 5' (The standard FG grid). This then gives us a map with dimensions of approximately 4600 by 6850 and about 2.25 Mb disc size. Reducing that to low rez jpg takes us down to about 1.5Mb in size. The actual map provided is 1500x2500 and takes up 244kb of space with virtually no loss of detail at all. (This was actually the only map where I was able to switch off the grid that came with the map - all of the others had the grid 'baked' into the map layer - thus I had a lot more flexibility in the size of the map produced).
Some of the maps were drawn with a 50' grid with each square being 100px on the map. To blow this up to get 5'=50px requires increasing the map again by 250% and if exported at lowest jpeg some of them become so pixellated as to be useless.
So, in summary the maps are provided with the best compromise of size and resolution and whilst super high rez is nice it is impractical in most cases and not actually necessary in all cases.

[Patou]

Zacchaeus,

Do you know if Jared Blando or any of the other cartographers that did work on SKT have websites where we could purchase both player and dm versions? I know Jared Blando, Mike Schley, and Sean MacDonald did in the past for the previous modules. For SKT I could only see that Jared Blando has added his maps to his web site. Do you know where we could find the others?

Thank you sir.

[Zacchaeus]

I know Jared has maps but I haven't checked the others. I'm not actually sure who did what (only Jared signs his maps). I think there were 6 or 7 cartographers acknowledged in the credits. I have a feeling that the Maps Mike Schley did are older ones (i.e. not specifically for SKT) so they are probably already on his site if you dig around.

Edit: Mike Schley's Maps (https://prints.mikeschley.com/p899177298)

[MarianDz]

Just to put some of this in perspective (since this question comes up fairly often) I've had a look at the Nightstone map. It comes as a photoshop (.psd) file which weighs in at 30Mb. Once I crop out Nightstone that takes it down to 19Mb and the map measures approximately 1850x2750 pixels. At medium jpeg resolution this is approximately 700kb. The map was drawn as you say to a 10' grid which on the map is 40px on a side. So in order to scale that up I need to multiply those dimensions by 250% in order that the map equates to a 50px grid representing 5' (The standard FG grid). This then gives us a map with dimensions of approximately 4600 by 6850 and about 2.25 Mb disc size. Reducing that to low rez jpg takes us down to about 1.5Mb in size. The actual map provided is 1500x2500 and takes up 244kb of space with virtually no loss of detail at all. (This was actually the only map where I was able to switch off the grid that came with the map - all of the others had the grid 'baked' into the map layer - thus I had a lot more flexibility in the size of the map produced).
Some of the maps were drawn with a 50' grid with each square being 100px on the map. To blow this up to get 5'=50px requires increasing the map again by 250% and if exported at lowest jpeg some of them become so pixellated as to be useless.
So, in summary the maps are provided with the best compromise of size and resolution and whilst super high rez is nice it is impractical in most cases and not actually necessary in all cases.

Zacchaeus and what you think about two sets of Maps?
One for online play and another in better resolution for example 2 - 2,5MB for playing over local network (LAN)?

[Zacchaeus]

Well it is possible to produce a module with two map resolutions (see Book of Lairs). Also it would make the module very big - STK is already 60Mb and that's with all the images optimized. You would be increasing the size of the mod by a pretty substantial amount. However there really isn't a huge difference between the quality.

Which one of the maps below is in High res?

[MarianDz]

you have right, difference is negligible. Thank you for this nice example

[Trenloe]

Which one of the maps below is in High res?
I think there's a possible misuse/misunderstanding of terms here. High res = high resolution - with computer image resolution usually referring to the number of pixels in the image. So "higher res" should have more pixels (in a general understanding of the term as applied to computer images). For example, an image of size 2000 x 2000 pixels is a higher resolution than an image of 1000 x 1000 pixels.

When Zacchaeus is referring to "high res" he actually means high "quality" - i.e. JPG images with a higher quality level, which results in more (crisper) detail (at the same pixel resolution) but a larger file size. There is usually a trade off at some level (usually JPG quality 40-70) where the image detail begins to significantly suffer and the loss of quality to image space saving ratio is no longer worth it. Zacchaeus provides two images of different quality in "The Book of Lairs", but they are actually the same pixel size (image resolution) - the advantage is that when share speed to the players is a concern (or you care about how fast the image appears with the players once shared) the lower quality images can be used.

Note: lower JPG quality can be referred to as higher JPG compression - because that is what the JPG standard uses to create lower file sizes: higher compression. JPG uses "lossy" compression - the higher the compression the more base image data is lost (that's how lossy compression works - removing some aspects of the data to reduce the size). Hence why at some point as the JPG quality setting lowers, the loss of data is noticeable.

A good comparison of resolution vs compression (JPG quality) is shown here: https://users.wfu.edu/matthews/misc/graphics/ResVsComp/JpgResVsComp.html

[Zacchaeus]

Ah, many thanks for this elucidation Trenloe; I will try to get the terminology better in future. :)

Whilst I intuitively knew that high resolution meant more pixels I thought that meant that they were just closer together to give a sharper image. I did not know that it actually meant a bigger image. Another little gap in my knowledge has been filled.

[Patou]

I created a map fro an encounter with CC3. It is pretty HD. My ''player'' laptop is logged onto mine via IP. It took a good 5 minutes for that map to share onto the player side. I can zoom in light crazy but I do lose on loading time. Love the info guys provided above.

Thanks

[Trenloe]

I created a map fro an encounter with CC3. It is pretty HD. My ''player'' laptop is logged onto mine via IP. It took a good 5 minutes for that map to share onto the player side. I can zoom in light crazy but I do lose on loading time.
Do you use a .PNG or .JPG file for this? What are the actual dimensions? You could probably reduce the file size a little (affects loading time) with a small level of JPG compression (kept at high quality) without seeing any noticeable loss in quality. I wouldn't recommend using .PNG files for FG images/maps - the size is just too large and high quality JPG files are usually a lot smaller.

Note: Image dimensions in pixels affect the memory usage of Fantasy Grounds - which is limited in the current FG architecture due to it being a 32-bit application. It doesn't matter if your computer is 64-bit and has lots of memory, FG can only use slightly less than 4GB of memory. Using large (pixel dimensions) maps can take up a lot of FG memory - along with opening a lot of FG library/adventure modules could cause random issues (usually crashing). So, be cautious with using very big maps!

[Patou]

Do you use a .PNG or .JPG file for this? What are the actual dimensions? You could probably reduce the file size a little (affects loading time) with a small level of JPG compression (kept at high quality) without seeing any noticeable loss in quality. I wouldn't recommend using .PNG files for FG images/maps - the size is just too large and high quality JPG files are usually a lot smaller.

Note: Image dimensions in pixels affect the memory usage of Fantasy Grounds - which is limited in the current FG architecture due to it being a 32-bit application. It doesn't matter if your computer is 64-bit and has lots of memory, FG can only use slightly less than 4GB of memory. Using large (pixel dimensions) maps can take up a lot of FG memory - along with opening a lot of FG library/adventure modules could cause random issues (usually crashing). So, be cautious with using very big maps!

I will definitely check that out when i get home from work before my game tonight. What would you use to switch it to jpeg? Should I use my CC3 and save as jpeg? What are the options you suggest I set them to under options in CC3 when saving as jpeg (if you know what I am referring to). I'm not in front of my stuff (at work) so I can't really give you specifics at this time.

Thanks Trenloe:)

[Trenloe]

I will definitely check that out when i get home from work before my game tonight. What would you use to switch it to jpeg? Should I use my CC3 and save as jpeg? What are the options you suggest I set them to under options in CC3 when saving as jpeg (if you know what I am referring to). I'm not in front of my stuff (at work) so I can't really give you specifics at this time.
Most CC3 users find that exporting from CC3 as a good quality and high-resolution PNG file is the first step (don't use this in FG). Then use a graphics app to resize to the pixel size you wish to use in FG and then export the file as JPG. GIMP (free) can do this: https://www.gimp.org/ Load up your exported image from CC3, resize if you need to, and then export as a JPG - the quality options will be presented when you press the "export" button in the "Export Image" dialog, try quality of 65 to start with. Open the exported JPG file and see if the quality is good enough for you - and compare the new files size. Don't overwrite your high quality export from CC3 - this is your master and you use it as the base to experiment with various JPG quality settings.

[kalmarjan]

I own cc3, but I am not at home right now...

Can you save your file out as an SVG or an AI file format, then bring it into something like Photoshop, then export it for Web? This seems the best work flow for keeping the file size low, and for guarding the quality of what you're making.

Here's (https://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=13226) a link to someone that asked the question about exporting maps from CC3 for VTT... Hope that helps...

[LordEntrails]

I own cc3, but I am not at home right now...

Can you save your file out as an SVG or an AI file format, then bring it into something like Photoshop, then export it for Web? This seems the best work flow for keeping the file size low, and for guarding the quality of what you're making.

Then again, I'm old... So maybe I'm off my rocker/need more meds...
No. CC3+ can save as; bmp, jpg, png, emf, dxf, & dwg

[Patou]

Most CC3 users find that exporting from CC3 as a good quality and high-resolution PNG file is the first step (don't use this in FG). Then use a graphics app to resize to the pixel size you wish to use in FG and then export the file as JPG. GIMP (free) can do this: https://www.gimp.org/ Load up your exported image from CC3, resize if you need to, and then export as a JPG - the quality options will be presented when you press the "export" button in the "Export Image" dialog, try quality of 65 to start with. Open the exported JPG file and see if the quality is good enough for you - and compare the new files size. Don't overwrite your high quality export from CC3 - this is your master and you use it as the base to experiment with various JPG quality settings.

This is awesome! I already have Gimp installed. Thanks man! I'll have a beer in your name as I'm setting this up this evening!15565

[Trenloe]

Here's (https://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=13226) a link to someone that asked the question about exporting maps from CC3 for VTT... Hope that helps...
The final post in that linked thread is incorrect - it's calculating 50 pixels per foot (250 pixels per 5 foot square which is way too big).

We've discussed exporting from CC3 a few times on these forums. This is what most people do:

Do a high quality export from CC3 (don't use JPG from CC3, I use PNG) - export at the pixel size you want to make the grid squares your chosen size. If you want 50 pixels per 5 foot square then export at 10 pixels per foot, if you want 100 pixels per 5 foot square export at 20 pixels per foot, etc.. You will need to do this calculation yourself as the save dialog needs the total map size in pixels - remember what map size you originally created, or measure it (You can measure using the info menu - see the "Scale" sidebar on page 45 of the CC3+ user manual) and use that as the reference size (usually in feet). This file will be your high quality master file - CC3 can take a while to export large maps with a lot of effects, so do a one time high quality export from CC3 and then post process your file outside of CC3.

Load that high quality master file into your chosen graphics app (GIMP, Paintshop, etc.) do your post processing (re-size if you need to, e.g. to create a smaller GM reference map, etc.) and then export as a JPG. Experiment with the quality settings (40-70 usually work well) - open the exported JPG file and review the quality (you usually won't see the exported file reflected in your graphics app as you'll still have the high quality master there - that's certainly how GIMP works) and also see what the JPG file size is.

Experiment with the quality settings a look at the exported file size and review the quality. Your goal should be to get a large map below 1MB in file size - smaller images/maps should be much smaller than this. If you have a really large map, with a lot of detail, you probably won't be able to get the file size below 1MB without losing too much of that detail - get it as small as you can with acceptable detail.