Pixels / dots per inch vs. pixel dimensions

[Garrett Guillotte]

I'd love to see future map rounds require a specific or minimum pixel dimensions for the map image, and for the ppi/dpi setting to be a recommendation.

The dpi/ppi metadata is not useful for designers, cartographers, layout, or publishing. The pixel dimensions are. The rules, if they're designed to accurately model working for Paizo as a freelancer, should reflect this.

It's clearly confusing to follow the rules that let you submit an image that follows "the 72ppi requirement that could get you DQ'd" but has an unreadably low actual ppi by its pixel dimensions. Any image could follow that requirement, including a 1-pixel blank dot.

More importantly, that also suggests an entry could potentially violate the rules and be disqualified by having a readable, publishable, and correct actual ppi by pixel dimension but potentially be disqualified because the ppi/dpi metadata is not 72, even though the metadata has no bearing on its display in the contest or value to a cartographer.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

If anyone follows the recommended total pixel dimensions, which are in the rules, they will end up with a perfectly legible map.

[R D Ramsey]

I know the affected contestants will hate this comment, but it's almost better to DQ entries that are too small to be legible for voters. Then we could have maps from the alternates we could vote on. As it is, there are a couple of entries that can't effectively be evaluated by the voters, which doesn't help anyone.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

If we do another map round we may well word the rules differently next year in a way that could impact what get's DQ'd - last year we had a different problem and not this one, so there are clearly still learning opportunities for us. But as long as someone met the rule's requirements, I'm not going to DQ them for making a poor (but legal) choice.

[R D Ramsey]

Understandable and fair decision.

Ah well, I'll squint at them and try to decide.

[Garrett Guillotte]

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

If anyone follows the recommended total pixel dimensions, which are in the rules, they will end up with a perfectly legible map. ... as long as someone met the rule's requirements, I'm not going to DQ them for making a poor (but legal) choice.

And several of the Top 32's maps didn't follow the recommended total pixel dimensions and still submitted a legible map, because their submissions had large enough pixel dimensions to be readable.

That's the point: A rule setting minimum or specific pixel dimensions can combat unreadable misfires while still forcing contestants to show they can follow directions. Making the ppi setting a recommendation instead of a rule, or removing it altogether, can reduce or eliminate the ambiguity of which detail is relevant to voters, judges, and freelancing.

It also avoids the awful possibility disqualifying someone on the letter of the rules for submitting, say, a readble map turnover with meaningless 75 dpi metadata. Especially folks with Ant's scanner.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

I don't have an issue disqualifying someone who turns over a legible map that doesn't follow the letter of the rules. And I don't have an issue with people needing to use their own judgement to make sure that while following the otter of the rules, they also still produce a legible map size. Being able to overcome those benchmarks are important tests of the ability to successfully freelance in real-world situations.

[Garrett Guillotte]

A rules otter? We're supposed to follow such a fast and adorable creature? Well that's just too much, Owen. I can't take it anymore.

In seriousness, I agree that rules compliance is a fair thing to ask of contestants. I don't think the ppi requirement as a rule is a relevant thing to ask, though, and the voters, competition, and by extension Paizo and Pathfinder fans don't benefit from asking contestants for that specific detail.

The map rounds of the contest ran well without a strict ppi requirement in the past, and it doesn't seem to serve much purpose except to be another thing to trip up amateur and inexperienced designers and contestants without graphic design backgrounds or software knowledge, which it successfully has.

In any case I'm glad to hear there's changes being considered for next season. Thanks for being open to feedback.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

The map rounds of the contest ran well without a strict ppi requirement in the past, and it doesn't seem to serve much purpose except to be another thing to trip up amateur and inexperienced designers and contestants without graphic design backgrounds or software knowledge, which it successfully has.

Actually the rule was added because of problems that cropped up last year, which just weren't as visible to the public.

But I AM always considering feedback.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

A rules otter? We're supposed to follow such a fast and adorable creature? Well that's just too much, Owen. I can't take it anymore.

And that, folks, is why I dislike auto-correct, and love my editors. :)

[Chris Lambertz]

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

The map rounds of the contest ran well without a strict ppi requirement in the past

This isn't wholly true from a logistics standpoint. Last year was the first year that we asked a larger pool to submit images to our contests (prior to that, it was limited to the Top 16 or fewer), and it was necessary to provide graphics requirements because they need to be handled by a human being to be added through our contest system. In those previous contests, because we didn't provide limitations on the image format, there was last minute scrambling to resize/correct images so they would be acceptable to present to an audience for voting (some of these would be giant 600 ppi images, for instance). We also wanted to take our hand out of manipulating the images we were sent to provide the audience with the truest representation of the contestants work. I'll agree that the line regarding image size/resolution could have been worded better to simply specify the dimensions, but we do need a line in our rules addressing acceptable image requirements for submissions.

[R D Ramsey]

There was a minor issue with legibility on some maps last year as well, but the problem images were adjusted by the Paizo staff in short order.

I do tend to agree with the idea that pixel resolution is probably the way to go. It's the most straight-forward for those of us who aren't graphics pros.

[Garrick Williams]

Battlemaps are grids consisting of 1-inch squares. Knowing this makes it rather easy to scale your map for any DPI. In a 72 dpi battlemap, each square has the dimensions of 72x72 pixels. So just multiply your battlemap's grid dimensions by 72 to determine the required image size in pixels.

[Marc Radle]

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

I'd love to see future map rounds require a specific or minimum pixel dimensions for the map image, and for the ppi/dpi setting to be a recommendation.

The dpi/ppi metadata is not useful for designers, cartographers, layout, or publishing. The pixel dimensions are. The rules, if they're designed to accurately model working for Paizo as a freelancer, should reflect this.

It's clearly confusing to follow the rules that let you submit an image that follows "the 72ppi requirement that could get you DQ'd" but has an unreadably low actual ppi by its pixel dimensions. Any image could follow that requirement, including a 1-pixel blank dot.

More importantly, that also suggests an entry could potentially violate the rules and be disqualified by having a readable, publishable, and correct actual ppi by pixel dimension but potentially be disqualified because the ppi/dpi metadata is not 72, even though the metadata has no bearing on its display in the contest or value to a cartographer.

For a print product, a publisher is going to commission a map at a specific size (half page, full page etc.) and will supply the neccessary dimentions (8" x 10.25" etc.) and final resolution (300 dpi typically)

Rarely do you commission a map or piece of art for a print product using pixel dimentions.

[Garrett Guillotte]

Garrick Williams wrote:

Battlemaps are grids consisting of 1-inch squares. Knowing this makes it rather easy to scale your map for any DPI. In a 72 dpi battlemap, each square has the dimensions of 72x72 pixels. So just multiply your battlemap's grid dimensions by 72 to determine the required image size in pixels.

That's true, and a wise way to go about it! And according to the rules, if you did that and saved a 24" x 30" image with 75 in the EXIF metadata, you'd be disqualified even though it has the exact same pixel dimensions and resolution as an identical copy of the same file with 72 in the EXIF metadata.

Meanwhile, if you sized the map to 24 or fewer pixels per square and saved it with 72 in the EXIF metadata, that's also legal, acceptable, and what nearly a fifth of this season's Top 32 did. Five of those six got two thumbs up from the judges. So why have the dpi requirement?

Marc Radle wrote:

For a print product, a publisher is going to commission a map at a specific size (half page, full page etc.) and will supply the neccessary dimentions (8" x 10.25" etc.) and final resolution (300 dpi typically)

Rarely do you commission a map or piece of art for a print product using pixel dimentions.

That's true! But Superstar's a web contest, not a print product.

Besides that, in my experience on both ends of the map assignment process for writers, map assignments for writers don't have resolution-in-ppi requirements that art orders for artists have. Along with the battlemap size in squares and a rough size estimate (1/2 page, full page) that primarily informs map label sizes and whether it's horizontal or vertical, this is about all I've gotten or given out for writers' map assignments, and it's right out of the Round 2 rules:

The rules wrote:

Your map doesn't have to be beautiful, it just has to be clear enough that Paizo could hand it to a professional cartographer without having to revise or redraw it.

That really ought to be all that's necessary for this round. No ppi, no pixel dimensions, just a legible map that's 24 squares by 30 squares. If the map isn't clear enough, it violates the rules.

Though per Chris, it sounds like that alone won't logistically work for 36 contest entries. If there has to be a requirement, minimum or specific pixel dimensions are the most appropriate for screens and would result in a consistent field for voters, contestants, and judges alike.

In any case, I'm done beating this otter horse and leave it to next year's rules.

[JPSTOD]

Nothing Confusing about the Map Entry Rules on Size
24 x 30 Inches
1" = 5' foot Scale
Saved at 72 DPI per 1"