| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably so they can be viewed on low-power devices without slowing down or consuming all the memory.
Lower-res is also more friendly to people who use rate limited internet.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The images are all commissioned as hi res art (artists don’t typically charge less for lower resolution since the effort to create the art is the same if the final file is 72 dpi, 150 dpi, or 300 dpi for example) and the art is all placed as high res in the master InDesign file used to print the actual books. When the files are exported to PDFs for sale on the site, the PDFs are optimized to be as small (in file size) as possible so the download times are not super long and to make the PDFs as quick and responsive on as many devices as possible.
One of the main things that happens during this PDF optimization is that all those huge, hi res art files are downsampled to much lower resolution (other things happen to the image files as well) while still allowing them to display nicely in the PDF
If all those graphics and art files were allowed to remain their original hi resolution the resulting PDFs would end up MUCH larger - I’d estimate the Core book alone would be many hundred MBs, probably upwards of a GB for example. Download times would extremely slow, the PDFs would have horrible response times on people’s devices (or would not work at all on older devices), the massive PDFs would quickly eat up storage space, etc. ...
Have you seen how small in filesize the CRB is? TINY compared to comparable PDFs.
I'd like there to be a source of higher res book art, however, can be very helpful for Lorefinder videos.
I mean how hi res do you need them to be? The image of the Wizard on Pg. 206 for example is 741 x 1212 when extracted. That's high res enough to look fine even full screen at 1080p.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are dimensions, not resolution.
How large a image is doesn't say anything about the quality of the image. 300 dpi vs 900 dpi (dots per inch), for example, is a huge jump in image quality. But also dramatically affects file size in terms of megabytes
Those are dimensions, not resolution.
How large a image is doesn't say anything about the quality of the image. 300 dpi vs 900 dpi (dots per inch), for example, is a huge jump in image quality. But also dramatically affects file size in terms of megabytes
Fair point. Admittedly, I am far from a graphic artist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, when you are talking about an image's resolution, DPI is THE most important thing (well, technically, DPI = dots per inch, which is really only applicable in printing; PPI = pixels per inch is the equivalent when dealing with a digital medium like a PDF, but for general purposes and to avoid undue confusion, we can use DPI and PPI interchangeably here)
Resolution (DPI), physical size (the actual dimensions of the image i.e. pixel dimensions when dealing with a digital file; inches, centimeters, etc. when dealing with print), and file size (how much space / data the file takes up ie. 2 MB, 800 KB, etc.) are three different things, although they are related. It is very important to understand this concept, and to use the correct terminology at the right time.
An image at a given resolution (DPI), at a given physical size will have a specific file size. You can't extract an image at a higher resolution (DPI) than the image actually has (unless you proportionately decrease the physical size of the image) without image quality loss. Some software can do an OK job of interpolating extra pixels in order to try and artificially increase the resolution, with varying degrees of success, but as a general rule, an image's original resolution can be reduced, but not increased (assuming the image's physical size / dimensions remain the same).
So, to properly describe an image, you would need to describe all of these elements: a 300 DPI, 3" x 5" image (or the pixel dimensions equivalent) might be 3MB. That same image at 72 DPI might only be 800KB.
When a PDF is optimized for online use, the Resolution (DPI) is one of the things that is decreased in order to make the resulting PDF smaller in file size. The image's physical size (the actual dimensions of the image) is not changed. Meaning that whatever resolution that image is in the PDF is what you get when you extract it. You cannot truly increase the resolution, unless you proportionately decrease the physical size of the image to compensate.
I know making my own files that going from a lossless file to a 100% resolution JPG compression sometimes cuts a file size in half, and dropping to 90% compression can cut the file size to 10 to 20 percent of the original file size, and is hardly noticeable.
Tl, dr; making lower resolution images drastically improves the file size and hence usability, and is rarely noticeable unless you squint at the pages.
They've said before, they commission the maps for the size of page that they go on, which often means there isn't a high-rez version.
Edit: And I say this as someone who's been extracting maps from Iron Gods for Fantasy Grounds. Would I like high-res maps? Heck yes! But I don't expect them because of the expense for higher-quality maps.
|
It could be super helpful if the OP would expand their 8-word sentence and explain what is exactly their problem.
If their problem is that art in their book is blurry or pixelated ... could be a misprint.
If the problem is that they took the *whatever weird US size Paizo books are* size art from the book, blew it up to show on a 70" projector they use for their VTT and now it looks fugly ... it's how image resolutions work, see thread.
If the problem is that the wallpaper on their 4k 60" TV is super crisp but Paizo art isn't nearly as laser fresh ... see above.
Just to note: the OP discussed the Core Rulebook, not adventure paths.
Yes, the OP did, but I was replying to the post immediately preceding mine, about a GM on roll20. I wouldn't have bothered replying to the OP, as other people had covered anything I might've said there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As printed artwork is many times larger than it generally needs to be for screen use, I don't have much issue with Paizo's imagery.
Except for the maps. The maps need to be much higher rez, or else they're not much use. Why am I forced to pay for maps that look like crap on Roll20 and similar services, and can't even be printed at a full playable scale?
Paizo really should give us better quality maps, or else reduce the prices of their modules to compensate for the lack of usable maps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternative: the buyer should accept a higher price for the current-length modules to compensate artists for better quality maps, or admit that better quality maps are not something they feel are actually a priority.
Agreed. I think that the Flip-map PDFs give a good idea of just how much a single high-res map would increase the cost by.
And you should have noted I didn't quote you directly.
Also correct, but you replied immediately after me, speaking about Adventure Paths, which was the subject I was commenting about to the person above me. Therefore it was a relatively easy assumption to make.
As a professional graphic designer with over ten years experience and with numerous tools and techniques at my disposal, I can testify that extracting maps and images directly out of the map PDFs is often unnecessarily difficult and complex.
Alternative: the buyer should accept a higher price for the current-length modules to compensate artists for better quality maps, or admit that better quality maps are not something they feel are actually a priority.Agreed. I think that the Flip-map PDFs give a good idea of just how much a single high-res map would increase the cost by.
If we're talking better quality artisanship then sure, that would work.
However, if we're talking higher resolution alone, then I disagree. As has been said (and as I can confirm as a professionalin the field), it does not take more work, skill or resources to output to a higher resolution.
There is little to no reason for the maps to be so low rez that we can't print them from the dedicated map PDFs at playable scale without them looking like a blurry pixelated mess.
If we're talking better quality artisanship then sure, that would work.
However, if we're talking higher resolution alone, then I disagree. As has been said (and as I can confirm being a graphic designer), it does not take more work, skill or resources to output to a higher resolution.
The problem with that is that, as Marc Radle pointed out, making it higher-resolution if the image created was too small to begin with would do no good. And I can confirm this as someone who has to create his own novel covers. For instance, Audible requires all cover art to be submitted at a 2400 x 2400 pixel resolution. I neglected to think of this when I commissioned an art piece for a cover, and got an art piece that was only 1650 pixels wide. This meant that I was forced to upsample the art in order to make it wide enough (Audible bans borders, so I couldn't simply fill in the area with black borders), and thus the art turned out blurrier than it was supposed to be.
Ah, you edited your post before I finished, but... the point as a whole stands. If the art commissioned was of an image the size they put in the AP volume as it stands (and thus takes less work from the artist and costs less due to that), it won't be printable without being blurry no matter what you do.
The interactive maps are an entirely different issue, and if they're truly a lower resolution than from the AP volumes (and I have no reason to doubt those of you who say they are), that's a problem that I think should be fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming they're using digital tools, an artist can always make a higher rez image (they just need to change the size of their digital canvas, brushes, and other tools).
You're absolutely right that raster art won't be able to be up-sized further (without quality degradation anyways) once made though.
It's even easier if the artist happens to be using vector tools. Then it literally becomes one size fits all. They just need to export the graphic at the requested size and resolution.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Few RPG maps are created with vector tools such as Illustrator. Most professional RPG maps are created with Photoshop. The cartographer is given a size (8.5 x 11 plus bleed; 11x17 plus bleed etc) and a target resolution (typically 300 dpi for standard professional offset printing)
You can’t just take that final file and export it at a higher resolution without a drop in quality (assuming that the physical size is not proportionately reduces that is)
Paizo (as well as other most other publishers) commissions cartographers to do their maps at print resolution and at the needed size for the print product.
When they export a PDF for customer download, or online use, they optimize it to make the PDF as small and responsive as possible on as many different devices as possible. They are not going to export PDFs with maps and art at full resolution - the PDFs would be huge, download times would take too long, the PDFs would take up too much space on devices, and would be slow or glitchy on older / lass powerful devices, etc.
This is standard procedure for most publishers
The PDFs simply are not intended to be used for VTT like some people want. What some RPG publishers do is offer separate map packs for an adventure at full resolution specifically for use in VTT, but you understandably would pay for those separately from the PDF (unless the publisher offers some sort of PDF / VTT bundle or something)
There really isn’t more to this, despite what folks want to do or say to try and complicate things. Full resolution maps are a separate, distinct animal from the adventure PDF, that’s just the way it is.
Try and complicate things? If you take nothing else from my posts, please understand that my entire argument has been that it ISN'T COMPLICATED AT ALL.
I understand that we can't go backwards on the raster graphics that have already been created at small size (better than most probably), but making maps larger for the MAP PRODUCTS moving forward simply wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) be much an issue. Simply ask the artist to create it at the higher size. Done. If they charge more for it, then they're scamming you (in much the same way those companies who put a brand name on the same product, then charge you double for it, are scamming you).
The only problems that could possibly arise are the file size/storage issue, but if you keep the images small in the modules, but make them large where they are expected to be large (such as in the interactive map PDFs), then there wouldn't be much of an issue.
...cranking up your brush size doesn't achieve a larger image that looks just as good, that's just not how things work).
Yeah, if everything is kept proportionate, the apparent level of detail will be about the same as we have now, but you'll still end up with cleaner lines and none of this fuzzy business.
If you truly want better detail, you'd actually want to use a smaller brush on a larger canvas. That would take more time and work though, which would warrant higher rates.
Artists will produce images & maps at whatever resolution they like, it's not a limiting factor for them unless they have a particularly old computer and use that to draw.
The file size of the maps in the pdfs is what matters: it's necessary to have them small to prevent the overall pdf getting too large. That's the only factor that matters here. But currently they are compressed a lot and low resolution, which makes them noticeably pixelated on eg: roll20. Printing them out at 'full size' they look pixelated too.
There would be several ways round this:
- Produce a separate map pdf with higher resolution files in it (and hence a much larger pdf file size).
- Sell separate high-rez map bundles. This is happening for Fantasy Grounds currently and some material. But you have to have Fantasy Grounds. And you are paying for a bunch of other assets that you may not want.
- Use a different method of map making: vector. All the paizo maps are bitmap files, which get very large file size-wise at high resolution. Vector maps can scale to any size without a file size increase. They do need to be created in a different way however, and don't use textures which effects how they can look.
Here's an example of a floor of the castle in Curse of the Crimson throne that I drew using vector tools: it is A0 size (poster) but only 1MB, and is resolution-independent so can be used any size with no pixellation. Vector map example. .
The bitmap quality (resolution and compression ratio) in the interactive maps pdfs is the same as in the main pdfs, or at least very very close. I've extracted bitmaps from both and done side by side comparisons. I'm guessing that the reason they are the same is that the interactive maps pdfs are made by taking the images from the main pdfs.
I really don't see why PDFs can't just come as a standard resolution and a high quality resolution, and you just download whichever you need.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The interactive maps are an entirely different issue, and if they're truly a lower resolution than from the AP volumes (and I have no reason to doubt those of you who say they are), that's a problem that I think should be fixed.At this time it is useful to note that, with the notable exception of the OP, NOBODY has complained about the image quality in general.
The ONLY complaint is that the "interactive maps" component is next to useless.
So please please please don't fill this thread with what amounts to defending reasonable practices against unreasonable demands. It amounts to nothing more than a straw man, since it overshadows the only real issue (as far as I'm aware): that Paizo for some as-of-yet unknown reason completely bungles their "interactive map" component, month after month.
Thank you
The quality of maps in the APs themselves are not up to normal digital map standards for VTT. Blowing them up still makes things blurry on a frequent basis, and paizo largely still hasn’t figured out how to make their grid squares consistently be, you know, square. The latter makes using the maps in VTT a gigantic chore in many cases just to line things up mostly properly.
The maps are certainly serviceable, and my players don’t complain about the image quality (you can still make everything out for the most part, and beats the pants off of just drawing lines on a blank canvas). But, there is a lot of room for improvement here. And this is about the maps in the APs, not talking about the interactive map PDFs at all. There are pretty major issues with their maps in general.
At this time it is useful to note that, with the notable exception of the OP, NOBODY has complained about the image quality in general.
The ONLY complaint is that the "interactive maps" component is next to useless.
So please please please don't fill this thread with what amounts to defending reasonable practices against unreasonable demands. It amounts to nothing more than a straw man, since it overshadows the only real issue (as far as I'm aware): that Paizo for some as-of-yet unknown reason completely bungles their "interactive map" component, month after month.
Thank you
Except that one of the posts I quoted said that the map quality in both the AP volumes and interactive maps pack was poor. So... you're wrong, the complaints have been made. Maybe you should be the one to back down, but I've yet to see you do that on this forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that one of the posts I quoted said that the map quality in both the AP volumes and interactive maps pack was poor. So... you're wrong, the complaints have been made. Maybe you should be the one to back down, but I've yet to see you do that on this forum.The quality in the AP volumes can be debated, but the point is: it's noticeably better than the same map in the "interactive maps" component.
Say anything else and you muddle the issue.
We’re allowed to care about more than one thing. For Cydeth, the AP volume map qualities is the issue. It’s not your issue, but you not having a problem doesn’t fix theirs.
We’re allowed to care about more than one thing. For Cydeth, the AP volume map qualities is the issue. It’s not your issue, but you not having a problem doesn’t fix theirs.
Yup. And saying that the AP maps are all acceptable quality comparatively is laughable. I've been putting the maps from Iron Gods 1 into Fantasy Grounds, and map B is really bad when viewed at any distance you can easily see details on the icons. I wonder if the Fantasy Grounds conversion is better, but if they are, they probably completely re-made the maps. And they aren't much use to me, since I'm converting the adventure to PF2 anyway.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Say anything else and you muddle the issue.
I'm sorry the issue as I understood it from reading the first post in this thread was low res images in the core rulebooks, isn't threadjacking this to turn this into another of your threads about AP interactive maps muddling the original issue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be a catch 22 situation, maybe the interactive maps would be a bigger seller if they had superior image quality, but they are currently a relatively niche product.
The interactive maps come with the adventure path PDFs though, so anyone buying the modules is already paying for them.