Mike Schley now offering an Against the Giants map bundle.

[dudeslife]

Mike Schley now offering an Against the Giants map bundle. The maps are from his original Dungeon magazine redux of the Against the Giants.

https://prints.mikeschley.com/p325737211/h86d25242#h86d25242

With some pin tweaking they should be great with the Yawning Portal adventure.

[celestian]

Hah! Great I had just complained about this a day or so ago. Thanks for the heads up!

[dudeslife]

Hah! Great I had just complained about this a day or so ago. Thanks for the heads up!

I don't understand why WoTC did not get him to just do the Giants maps (or ToH, WPM) for TYP. Nobody else even comes close to the quality of his dungeon cartography.

[celestian]

I don't understand why WoTC did not get him to just do the Giants maps (or ToH, WPM) for TYP. Nobody else even comes close to the quality of his dungeon cartography.

He certainly does some good work. I've not used his maps before but was thinking of running a one shot G1 with my new ruleset for some folks and wanted to see how they turned out.

Beautiful maps!

[celestian]

So, I got the bundle but it's a PDF? I really need the imagines themselves. Pulling stuff out of a PDF has a huge amount of issues with size/alignment ;( Do you know how do get copies of the images themselves?

[Zacchaeus]

Load them into Photoshop or you should be able to just capture the image from your pdf reader.

[celestian]

Load them into Photoshop or you should be able to just capture the image from your pdf reader.

Capturing the imagine in the PDF is going to mess with the quality and I can't get the grids aligned because of the edges. There is no "outer grid". I've tried on 2 of the maps already. I really was hoping for properly sized map images I could just scale as needed. ;(

[leozelig]

Mike has a tutorial on re-sizing battlemaps:

https://schleytutorials.tumblr.com/post/90779221923/resizing-battle-maps-to-a-1-inch-grid

I have used Paint.NET for that in the past because it's free and easy to use. Take a snapshot with the pdf set at 100% magnification, and there shouldn't be too much loss of quality. You WILL lose resolution when you resize the image, but the Sharpen tool can offset some of that. Not perfect, I know...

[Zacchaeus]

The blurp that I read on his site says that the maps come without a built in grid so you should be able to just draw a grid on it without any resizing - as long as you know the scale it was drawn to.

[celestian]

The blurp that I read on his site says that the maps come without a built in grid so you should be able to just draw a grid on it without any resizing - as long as you know the scale it was drawn to.

Some of the maps have grids, some do not. But the grids do not go to edge of the map. Also, when I've tried to capture just the grid portion they do not align. More than likely because of the snap tool, my view/etc because that's what it takes the image snapshot from, not the actual map image file. Whatever the case the captured image is not aligned perfectly with the grids.

I've emailed the site and hope they can provide the images. I just assumed they would be high res PNG or something, not a low rez PDF. I honestly don't have the time or the desire to fiddle with a PDF to get them to align in FG.

[Zacchaeus]

If there's a pre drawn grid use this tool (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?19813-Map-Align-Utility-to-scale-and-align-map-to-grid) to resize the map to align with the FG grid.

[Trenloe]

I just assumed they would be high res PNG or something, not a low rez PDF.
I don't know where you get the idea you got a low resolution PDF. The PDF is 166MB in size - which suggests these images contains are certainly *not* low resolution.

You can see the resolution of the images on the website by clicking the "Info" tab to the top left of the image preview (#1 below) and the image resolution is shown (#2):

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18405

This is the same resolution as the embedded images in the PDF.

You can extract the images fine using Adobe Acrobat Reader DC: https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html and then make stand alone images in GIMP: https://www.gimp.org/

Using two easy steps:

Open the PDF in Adobe Acrobat Reader DC, go to the page you want, right click and ensure "Select Tool" is enabled. Then left-click on the page so that the whole page is highlighted, right-click and select "Copy Image".
Open GIMP and go to Edit -> Paste As -> New Image.


In the above example, you will now have a 4200x3223 pixel image in GIMP. Resize it (as this is too big for Fantasy Grounds) and "Export As" a JPG with around 60-70 Quality.

You'd have to do most of this to get a good sized (and grid aligned) map in FG anyway. The two steps I mentioned above to get the full resolution image into GIMP take 10 seconds - not much more than opening a high resolution native image file in GIMP to start with.

[celestian]

If there's a pre drawn grid use this tool (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?19813-Map-Align-Utility-to-scale-and-align-map-to-grid) to resize the map to align with the FG grid.

I was able to align the grids with this, thanks for pointing it out! I still hope I can get better rez maps and just rescale but this will be super useful for maps I find in the wild at the very least!


I don't know where you get the idea you got a low resolution PDF. The PDF is 166MB in size - which suggests these images contains are certainly *not* low resolution.



That's not what I see.

https://i.imgur.com/2Hdwzl1.png

The problem with using the "snap image" (I use foxit) is that the image is only the resolution of your current view. So if you don't work full screen the imagine will not be the same since as the image used to create the PDF. Even at full screen the resolution will NOT be 4k anything. At least not on my desktop. The best I can get is 1699x1303.

[Trenloe]

That's not what I see.

https://i.imgur.com/2Hdwzl1.png

The problem with using the "snap image" (I use foxit) is that the image is only the resolution of your current view. So if you don't work full screen the imagine will not be the same since as the image used to create the PDF. Even at full screen the resolution will NOT be 4k anything. At least not on my desktop. The best I can get is 1699x1303.
That's the title image, not an actual map. Select one of the map preview images (like I've shown in post #12 above) and you'll see the actual resolution for that map, not a title thumbnail.

And, I take it you've noticed that the PDF you've downloaded is not 726.4KB, but is 166MB in size?

[celestian]

That's the title image, not an actual map. Select one of the map preview images and you'll see the actual resolution.

And, I take it you've noticed that the download PDF is not 726.4KB, but is 166MB in size?

Yeap, sorry that image was just what I saw a checkout. As I said when using foxit the resolution hasn't been anywhere near the resolution you mentioned. I'll poke at adobe reader DC again. I looked at it because I used to have a version of it that would just export the image directly out but I did not see what their version of the "snap tool" did. Apparently you have to pay for the direct export mode now?

Ok, so trying Adobe Reader DC it doesn't seem to care what the desktop resolution (like foxit does) and did export as 4200x3223. The grids did not line up properly but with the help of the tool previously mentioned I was able to get it lined up in short order.

In short, it works... if you use some specific tools. Not what I expected to have to do but still happy with the purchase.

Thanks for all the help fellow forum folks!

[Trenloe]

I hope this thread helps to highlight the issues that the FG developers have when trying to make maps for official products. Even with the original image from the cartographer it can be a pain to make something work for FG. But, it is rarely the case that the FG developer will get the original map. What normally happens is:


The Cartographer produces the map. Then sends a copy of that map to the publisher. It may be a nice high resolution map, but it might not be - it all depends on the arrangement with the publisher, etc..
The publisher then resizes/stretches/adjusts the image received in step #1 to make it look good for printing within the area they allocated in their product for the map.
The publisher then publishes the product with the map in it.
the Fantasy Grounds developer either receives a copy of the adjusted map (the output of step #2) or a PDF of the product (#3) and now has to work with a resized and possible reshaped image that is much less resolution than the original and probably doesn't align grids too well.

As the cartographer who made the maps keeps the original copyright of the product, it's not a case of SmiteWorks simply getting the maps directly from the cartographer, the FG developer is limited to what they get from the publisher. Hence why we get threads such as this: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?37412-Yawning-Portal-map-quality Where there is the impression that there are full quality maps available to FG developers, when that is not actually the case.

Hope this helps to illustrate the limitations the FG developers have to work with when converting published modules into Fantasy Grounds.

[L. R. Ballard]

I hope this thread helps to highlight the issues that the FG developers have when trying to make maps for official products. Even with the original image from the cartographer it can be a pain to make something work for FG. But, it is rarely the case that the FG developer will get the original map. What normally happens is:


The Cartographer produces the map. Then sends a copy of that map to the publisher. It may be a nice high resolution map, but it might not be - it all depends on the arrangement with the publisher, etc..
The publisher then resizes/stretches/adjusts the image received in step #1 to make it look good for printing within the area they allocated in their product for the map.
The publisher then publishes the product with the map in it.
the Fantasy Grounds developer either receives a copy of the adjusted map (the output of step #2) or a PDF of the product (#3) and now has to work with a resized and possible reshaped image that is much less resolution than the original and probably doesn't align grids too well.

As the cartographer who made the maps keeps the original copyright of the product, it's not a case of SmiteWorks simply getting the maps directly from the cartographer, the FG developer is limited to what they get from the publisher. Hence why we get threads such as this: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?37412-Yawning-Portal-map-quality Where there is the impression that there are full quality maps available to FG developers, when that is not actually the case.

Hope this helps to illustrate the limitations the FG developers have to work with when converting published modules into Fantasy Grounds.

I wonder if the upcoming MapForge tool will yield high-resolution maps for commercial use so that content creators publishing FG stuff on DMs Guild can work directly with FG using the original art assets.

[celestian]

I wanted to add that GIMP also will directly import images from a PDF. I used file->open, list all files, clicked on the PDF and it had a listing of images I could "import" into GIMP. You will need to set the resolution to 300 (default was 100?) to get the same resolution... at least that's what I had to do.

This allows me to skip the adobe reader DC step.

https://i.imgur.com/j5w5qly.png

[LordEntrails]

I wonder if the upcoming MapForge tool will yield high-resolution maps for commercial use so that content creators publishing FG stuff on DMs Guild can work directly with FG using the original art assets.
It's not about the tool used to create the map, it's about what the FG developer or converter is able to get. For instance, when I published my own module on the DMsG, I include both VTT and Print resolutions of the images. I create my maps via CC3+, but it's all about what images I have access to.

[Trenloe]

I wanted to add that GIMP also will directly import images from a PDF. I used file->open, list all files, clicked on the PDF and it had a listing of images I could "import" into GIMP. You will need to set the resolution to 300 (default was 100?) to get the same resolution... at least that's what I had to do.
This is a good way to get maps into GIMP.

But a word of warning - getting the original map size is only possible if:
1) You know the DPI of the images used in the PDF.
2) All of the maps in the PDF use the same DPI (if you're importing all at once).

In this case we're lucky as we know the original image size - from both the website and being able to copy out of the PDF to confirm the image resolution. Sometimes this isn't always possible and you have to estimate the DPI to get an image of the original dimensions, and you may just be guessing.

[Trenloe]

I wonder if the upcoming MapForge tool will yield high-resolution maps for commercial use so that content creators publishing FG stuff on DMs Guild can work directly with FG using the original art assets.
With any mapping application you need to be aware if the maps you create can be publicly distributed or used for commercial products. Campaign Cartograpther (for example) does allow you to use all of their symbols in commercial mapping products.

MapForge is a maybe/depends. From their FAQ on the Kickstarter page:


Can I publish the maps I create with MapForge?

That depends. In principle, yes you can, but be aware that many Add-Ons will probably have publishing restrictions (e.g., Personal/Private use only). If your maps don’t use any Add-Ons with such restrictions, you should be OK to publish what you create with the app (as long as you aren’t infringing anyone else’s IP).

[L. R. Ballard]

With any mapping application you need to be aware if the maps you create can be publicly distributed or used for commercial products. Campaign Cartograpther (for example) does allow you to use all of their symbols in commercial mapping products.

MapForge is a maybe/depends. From their FAQ on the Kickstarter page:

Precisely. Before Heruca had a commercial option on his Kickstarter, I requested that he try to acquire commercial-use art assets for MapForge. I also requested that he set up his website to distinguish between noncommerical assets and commercial assets. Otherwise, there are too many "iffy" assets out there for me to feel comfortable using them in a commercial context.

https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?513977-Trying-to-gauge-interest-in-new-battlemap-making-software

My musing above relates more to whether or not MapForge can create high-resolution maps that would make it useful for commercial purposes. I backed Heruca's Kickstarter at the commercial level, so I suppose I'll see.

[Trenloe]

And, as an FYI for anyone reading this: "high resolution" (in terms of lots of dots per grid square) isn't needed for Fantasy Grounds maps - between 50 and 100 pixels per 5 foot square is more than enough (and sometimes too much). So maps that have 300dpi (dots per inch) and assuming each "inch" is a 5 foot square, is just way too much for Fantasy Grounds maps. You'll need to scale such maps back quite a bit. However, be aware that sometimes cartographers quoting 300dpi (or similar) doesn't equate through to 300 pixels per grid square - as a lot of them don't really translate their maps sizes (with dpi) into the VTT realm of pixels per grid square. Bottom line - if you're creating your own maps, you don't need 2-300 pixels per square, go with 50-100 (and stick to the same through all of your maps if you can).

[L. R. Ballard]

And, as an FYI for anyone reading this: "high resolution" (in terms of lots of dots per grid square) isn't needed for Fantasy Grounds maps - between 50 and 100 pixels per 5 foot square is more than enough (and sometimes too much). So maps that have 300dpi (dots per inch) and assuming each "inch" is a 5 foot square, is just way too much for Fantasy Grounds maps. You'll need to scale such maps back quite a bit. However, be aware that sometimes cartographers quoting 300dpi (or similar) doesn't equate through to 300 pixels per grid square - as a lot of them don't really translate their maps sizes (with dpi) into the VTT realm of pixels per grid square. Bottom line - if you're creating your own maps, you don't need 2-300 pixels per square, go with 50-100 (and stick to the same through all of your maps if you can).

Excellent. Favorited thread.

[Full Bleed]

But a word of warning - getting the original map size is only possible if:
1) You know the DPI of the images used in the PDF.

FYI, provided that you aren't working with a protected document (and you shouldn't be since they are expecting you to extract images) you can usually pull original ppi settings from a PDF using Adobe's PreFlight tool... then do a 1 to 1 in Photoshop (or Gimp).


2) All of the maps in the PDF use the same DPI (if you're importing all at once).
Which usually is not the case... but PreFlight will disclose this, too.

[L. R. Ballard]

It's not about the tool used to create the map, it's about what the FG developer or converter is able to get. For instance, when I published my own module on the DMsG, I include both VTT and Print resolutions of the images. I create my maps via CC3+, but it's all about what images I have access to.

Okay, I'm glad I was merely musing, filled with wonder. I'll not argue that a map-creating tool is the cause of low-resolution maps.

[Trenloe]

provided that you aren't working with a protected document (and you shouldn't be since they are expecting you to extract images)
Unfortunately that is not always the case. Some publishers put images into PDFs because they want to limit you to printing only, not extracting the images and working on them yourself. Fortunately, this is rare, but you can't rely on always being able to extract images from a PDF.


... but PreFlight will disclose this, too.
Is preflight available in the free version of Acrobat Reader? I can't access it without a page coming up asking me to subscribe to Acrobat Pro DC for $15/month.

[Full Bleed]

Unfortunately that is not always the case. Some publishers put images into PDFs because they want to limit you to printing only, not extracting the images and working on them yourself. Fortunately, this is rare, but you can't rely on always being able to extract images from a PDF.
For the typical end-use, true. But I was referring more to the use cases indicated in this thread (i.e. FG content developers being given files that they are expected to extract VTT quality images from and user purchased products, as mentioned in the OP, that they are expected to be able to extract useful images from.) Otherwise, if the documents are protected for print/view only, one would have to resort to more aggressive methods to open the path. However, truth is, that packaging images meant for extraction in a PDF is a very poor way to distribute said images in the first place... leading to all the hoop-jumping we've been discussing. As you've noted, it's simply not what PDFs were designed for.


Is preflight available in the free version of Acrobat Reader? I can't access it without a page coming up asking me to subscribe to Acrobat Pro DC for $15/month.
Probably not. It's one of their "advanced" PROduction oriented tools. There may even be other, cheaper, "professional" PDF studio type software out there that have similar tools. And if you don't want to pick up the newest subscription to Acrobat Pro you can find an earlier version for a reasonable 1-time price. I think I'm still using 9... even though I don't do nearly as much professional production work these days as I used to I haven't run into a recent PDF that I couldn't get the job done on.