Image quality downgrade in 3.2

[villadelfia]

I noticed that all of the images in 3.2 have been downgraded in quality, why is this?

Attached is a comparison. Left is new, right is what that same image used to look like in 3.1.7. Massive downgrades like this have been done across the board.

[Zacchaeus]

The only difference is one is embedded and the other isn't. Same images were used in the new PHB as was in the old one.

[JohnD]

Probably a by product of the minimum width thingy for pictures/maps/etc....

That said I don't see any difference but I'm on a phone right now.

[Nickademus]

Probably because the embedded image has a slight resize automated.

[kalmarjan]

The only difference is one is embedded and the other isn't. Same images were used in the new PHB as was in the old one.

Are you resizing the images within FG? If the image is in JPG format, that explains the artifacts. If it's a PNG image, then idk

[Zacchaeus]

Are you resizing the images within FG? If the image is in JPG format, that explains the artifacts. If it's a PNG image, then idk

No, the embedded image in the example that the OP posted is the same size embedded and un-embedded (if that's even a word). Most of the images are actually larger than the embedded size. All of them are jpg since png files would make the modules enormously big.

[kalmarjan]

No, the embedded image in the example that the OP posted is the same size embedded and un-embedded (if that's even a word). Most of the images are actually larger than the embedded size. All of them are jpg since png files would make the modules enormously big.

My understanding is that if the filesize is the same, and the image itself is larger, then you will have image artifacts because you are resampling the image using a lossy compression. You'll sometimes have image artifacts if the images are saved with the same filesize and dimensions because of how the JPEG compression works. It depends on what the protocol to downsample the image is.

That is if the program is copying and saving the image, but I thought you were dealing with links to physical JPEG files?

[Zacchaeus]

When I say size I mean the same dimensions. In this case the image is about 500x650 or so. It is the same size embedded and in the images folder. The OP is comparing an embedded image from the new PHB with one which was only in the images folder previously. At least I think that's what he is doing.

[villadelfia]

I have compared the actual files in the 3.1.7 vault data file with the files in WOTC5EPHBDELUXE.DAT in 3.2.0 and they are definitely downgraded in quality.

I would upload two files for comparison, but I can't do that for obvious reasons. In short, the newer files are lower resolution and of a lower jpg quality.

3.1.7: CONTENT.DAT -> modules/DD PHB DELUXE/images/Part1.jpg -> 538 kb, 629x835 resolution.
3.2.0: WOTC5EPHBDELUXE.DAT -> modules/DD PHB DELUXE/images/Part1.jpg -> 30.49 kb, 500x664 resolution.

[damned]

I have compared the actual files in the 3.1.7 vault data file with the files in WOTC5EPHBDELUXE.DAT in 3.2.0 and they are definitely downgraded in quality.

I would upload two files for comparison, but I can't do that for obvious reasons. In short, the newer files are lower resolution and of a lower jpg quality.

3.1.7: CONTENT.DAT -> modules/DD PHB DELUXE/images/Part1.jpg -> 538 kb, 629x835 resolution.
3.2.0: WOTC5EPHBDELUXE.DAT -> modules/DD PHB DELUXE/images/Part1.jpg -> 30.49 kb, 500x664 resolution.

Good spotting 99.
This is a good thing though right? Makes this resource share sooooo much quicker!

[kalmarjan]

Good spotting 99.
This is a good thing though right? Makes this resource share sooooo much quicker!

If you're manipulating the jmage, then saving it at a lower size, you are degrading your image.

[villadelfia]

Good spotting 99.
This is a good thing though right? Makes this resource share sooooo much quicker!

I think they went a bit too far. Take the image from the outlander background for example, that just objectionably bad in 3.2.0. See attached PNG, these are the ACTUAL images from the vaults. No re-compression has been done on them and no quality loss has been induced.

I can understand that they want to make a version for people with third-world internet, but I paid for the quality on the left of the attached image, not for the garbage on the right that 3.2.0 contains. And I remind you again, I have not done any editing except for putting them side by side and *shrinking* the old one to match the new one.

Even worse is that the store page still advertises using the old high-quality image instead of the garbage we're actually getting right now: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.xcp?id=WOTC5EPHBDELUXE

In the next version I expect *at least* a middle ground, because this quality is just unacceptably bad. And it annoys me to no end because I *know* they have higher quality images because they used to deliver them. For now I've injected the old images into the new vault data files.

[kalmarjan]

I think they went a bit too far. Take the image from the outlander background for example, that just objectionably bad in 3.2.0. See attached PNG, these are the ACTUAL images from the vaults. No re-compression has been done on them and no quality loss has been induced.

I can understand that they want to make a version for people with third-world internet, but I paid for the quality on the left of the attached image, not for the garbage on the right that 3.2.0 contains. And I remind you again, I have not done any editing except for putting them side by side and *shrinking* the old one to match the new one.

Even worse is that the store page still advertises using the old high-quality image instead of the garbage we're actually getting right now: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.xcp?id=WOTC5EPHBDELUXE

In the next version I expect *at least* a middle ground, because this quality is just unacceptably bad. And it annoys me to no end because I *know* they have higher quality images because they used to deliver them. For now I've injected the old images into the new vault data files.

This is a bit strong here. The people at Smite Works are dedicated to the community. If there is a problem from their end, they'll rectify it. Its why I've stuck with them for 12 years.

[damned]

If you're manipulating the jmage, then saving it at a lower size, you are degrading your image.

True but without the images side by side 9/10 people wont notice.
Even with the images side by side half the viewers wont notice unless yo prod them to...

[damned]

I think they went a bit too far. Take the image from the outlander background for example, that just objectionably bad in 3.2.0. See attached PNG, these are the ACTUAL images from the vaults. No re-compression has been done on them and no quality loss has been induced.

I can understand that they want to make a version for people with third-world internet, but I paid for the quality on the left of the attached image, not for the garbage on the right that 3.2.0 contains. And I remind you again, I have not done any editing except for putting them side by side and *shrinking* the old one to match the new one.

Even worse is that the store page still advertises using the old high-quality image instead of the garbage we're actually getting right now: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.xcp?id=WOTC5EPHBDELUXE

In the next version I expect *at least* a middle ground, because this quality is just unacceptably bad. And it annoys me to no end because I *know* they have higher quality images because they used to deliver them. For now I've injected the old images into the new vault data files.

There is also sometimes a trade off - the new feature where the images are inline in the text - like in the hardback edition - is so much easier to read and so much more usable.
The image you have compared above is definitely poorer quality - but many of the images are nowhere near as obvious as that. Im sure if you pointed out the worst cases they would be looked at.
I for one will take the new format over the old format - along with the reduced image quality - without any issues.

Ive just had a good look thru a bunch of the images and some could definitely do with returning a bit more quality to them :)

[damned]

Ive had a better look - and I stand by the reduction in dimensions to fit in the inline format but Im wrong on the quality of some of those images... a bunch definitely need some quality put back in them.

[Zacchaeus]

I'll update the images to provide higher quality ones.

[ShadoWWW]

Please, do so. In fact, I would appreciate even bigger resolution, especially for illustrations in MM.

[ddavison]

This was accidental and will be fixed in a subsequent update. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Sigurd]

I'm sure the designers are thinking about the speed of the application at the table. There will always be better, higher resolution images on the web and you know that you can use different images if you recast a monster or if you have a real problem.

That said, 3.2 is really new. They'll tweak it if there are concerns. They're not trying to give you less picture but a better experience.

I'm sure they appreciate your concern. My guess is they optimized images on mass as part of the rewrite. If there are places where the optimization failed, keep a list.




===> Ninja-ed by 5 minutes! :)

[villadelfia]

Thank you! :D

[Salva]

I can understand that they want to make a version for people with third-world internet, but I paid for the quality on the left of the attached image, not for the garbage on the right that 3.2.0 contains.
Im from the called “third-world” and i have unlimited internet with more tan 21Mbps speed (dont know if its much or less to yours) but i dont have any problems at loading a 9MB file size image with 5455x7500 pixels size so……
I like high quality images for pictures in fantasy grounds and more for maps that you could zoom in for battles and do not loose any quality. I love when you can even see a detail like a chained skeleton an inscription in the floor or a detailed book when zooming and if i have to choose betwen a long loading time than better quality image i, with any doubt, will prefer by far better quality image.
I remember that i get a bit dissapointed with the quality of the map of the 3.5e sample campaing “Tale of Dinnor” when i first grab FG. I think that like it is a representation card it must have a better quality images for ensure the engage of people like me that likes high quality maps.

This is a bit strong here. The people at Smite Works are dedicated to the community. If there is a problem from their end, they'll rectify it. Its why I've stuck with them for 12 years.
Totally agree and you were right.

I'll update the images to provide higher quality ones.
Very nice!! Thanks!!!!

Please, do so. In fact, I would appreciate even bigger resolution, especially for illustrations in MM.
Me too and for map images too.
Thanks

[Trenloe]

Hey guys - I completely agree that some of the images in the PHB are way too low quality and should be updated. But calling for massive resolution files is not a good idea.

Image quality and size has been discussed a lot recently:

1) large file sizes take a long time to transfer from the GM to the player. FG modules have to provide a compromise of image quality and file size to be able to keep the sharing time to a reasonable level for *all* FG users, not just the ones with a huge internet connection.
2) High resolution files (pixel dimension) takes up lots of FG memory. FG is a 32-bit application so it's memnory is limited - even if you have 16GB or more on the system. FG will crash at around 1.5GB-1.7GB on a 32-bit operating system and will crash at around 3.5-3.7GB on a 64-bit operating system. As such module images should not have large dimensions as a few of them will have a massive load on the FG system and cause crashes/issue.

So, please keep this in mind: it is not feasible for Smiteworks to provide modules with super high quality, large file size images or large image dimensions in the current system architecture.

[Salva]

But calling for massive resolution files is not a good idea.
Sorry if looks that i mean that, wasnt my intention at all. (my english is not very good).


Image quality and size has been discussed a lot recently:
1) large file sizes take a long time to transfer from the GM to the player. FG modules have to provide a compromise of image quality and file size to be able to keep the sharing time to a reasonable level for *all* FG users, not just the ones with a huge internet connection.
2) High resolution files (pixel dimension) takes up lots of FG memory. FG is a 32-bit application so it's memnory is limited - even if you have 16GB or more on the system. FG will crash at around 1.5GB-1.7GB on a 32-bit operating system and will crash at around 3.5-3.7GB on a 64-bit operating system. As such module images should not have large dimensions as a few of them will have a massive load on the FG system and cause crashes/issue.
Understood, i just was asking for the best posible quality :)


So, please keep this in mind: it is not feasible for Smiteworks to provide modules with super high quality, large file size images or large image dimensions in the current system architecture.
Maybe some day…… :)

[ShadoWWW]

There might be a switch in options for low-speed internet connection, or high-speed internet connection. There would be both high resolution pictures for playing on high-speed internet connection or on LAN to display them on TV or 4K monitor, and low resolution pictures for playing on low-speed internet connection like Wi-Fi or mobile connection.

That would be perfect. Just saying...

[Salva]

There might be a switch in options for low-speed internet connection, or high-speed internet connection. There would be both high resolution pictures for playing on high-speed internet connection or on LAN to display them on TV or 4K monitor, and low resolution pictures for playing on low-speed internet connection like Wi-Fi or mobile connection.

That would be perfect. Just saying...

As i undertand it is not just about internet connection but also, and more trascendental, the amount of memory used by FG in high res images:



2) High resolution files (pixel dimension) takes up lots of FG memory. FG is a 32-bit application so it's memnory is limited - even if you have 16GB or more on the system. FG will crash at around 1.5GB-1.7GB on a 32-bit operating system and will crash at around 3.5-3.7GB on a 64-bit operating system. As such module images should not have large dimensions as a few of them will have a massive load on the FG system and cause crashes/issue.

So, please keep this in mind: it is not feasible for Smiteworks to provide modules with super high quality, large file size images or large image dimensions in the current system architecture.

[Trenloe]

There might be a switch in options for low-speed internet connection, or high-speed internet connection. There would be both high resolution pictures for playing on high-speed internet connection or on LAN to display them on TV or 4K monitor, and low resolution pictures for playing on low-speed internet connection like Wi-Fi or mobile connection.

That would be perfect. Just saying...
Nice idea, but:
1) That would be really hard to do and potentially very confusing for users as it would double up links for images and double up links from images to other records. Everything in FG modules is hard coded to use a specific record (if you have any knowledge of relational databases it's similar to foreign keys in RDBMSs - you can't just flick a switch to use different relational records) and this is the same for a map - so having different versions of maps would double up all of the links to said map (story entries, encounter pre-placement) and require all pushpin links on the maps to be recreated.
2) It is not just internet connection speed that is the issue here - a major issue (that actually causes tangible problems - crashes, corrupted data, etc.) is memory use. See my point 2 in post #23 above. This is why we will always say "keep image size and resolution down" so that it will help to avoid people having crashes and potentially losing their campaign data. If you're aware of file size being an issue with share speed and you're willing to put up with that (slow sharing for higher quality images) then go for it - you're not going to have crashes by using high quality versions of the same resolution image. But using high resolution images as replacements for average resolution (usually 50 pixels per 5 foot square) can give you game breaking issues.

As an FYI, different quality (not resolution) maps were provided in the 5E compatible module "Book of Lairs (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.xcp?id=KPFG5EBOL)" which was do-able as these maps were just for small locations and so didn't have lots of links and encounters with token pre-population. And, to be honest, if you look at the two quality images side-by-side in FG there is really very little difference and not worth (IMHO) all of the extra work, doubling up on records and potential GM confusion/mix up of which records are which.

[Trenloe]

As i undertand it is not just about internet connection but also, and more trascendental, the amount of memory used by FG in high res images:
Beat me to it - I was typing out a longer reply. Thanks, this is exactly what I (and others) have been trying to get across. :)

[Zacchaeus]

As an FYI, different quality (not resolution) maps were provided in the 5E compatible module "Book of Lairs (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.xcp?id=KPFG5EBOL)" which was do-able as these maps were just for small locations and so didn't have lots of links and encounters with token pre-population. And, to be honest, if you look at the two quality images side-by-side in FG there is really very little difference and not worth (IMHO) all of the extra work, doubling up on records and potential GM confusion/mix up of which records are which.

Correct; I thought it was a brilliant idea when I started doing it but it soon got to be a PITA with all the additional links/encounters etc. The only reason I did it at all was becasue this was the only thing that I ever got where the maps came gridless and free of anything which the players should see like secret doors, room numbers etc. So doing the maps took no time at all really but that was more than made up in the doubling of encounters. And at the end of the day the difference in the quality of the maps is marginal.