CC3: Image Importing and Resolution Limits, anybody know this?

Ok, so - the symbols catalogue project is going terrifically, but I have run into a bit of a snag. Now some of the images that I have created are very large resolution size (h x w = n),
and some are not tiny, but "smallish". They range the gamit in image sizes. I need to know how big to grow them, or how small to shrink them, to make them look the best in CC3.
I know CC3 scales it for you but the "HI" scale size in CC3 when I tested it on the Outpost model was original resolution (?). Some of my images are 1024 wide, some are 300, Some are 100 wide, etc..
I need to know what the image size constraints should be BEFORE these images should be scaled properly for CC3 Image Import.

What's too big, and what's too small - for a drawing to be, before it is imported and turned into a symbol?


  • MonsenMonsen 🖼️ 44 images Cartographer Administrator
    Well, all of those images are map markers, so the best option is to simply look at the existing CC3 images for this purpose. You'll find those in #Symbols\Maps\CC3\Borders.

    If you for example take a at the HI version of the Apple symbol, it is 121x122 pixels. This should be a decent baseline for the HI version of such symbols, assuming you wish these symbols to be approximately the same size as the apple symbol. (In comparison, the VH version of the apple is 303x306 pixels).

    Some of the other images are a bit larger than the apple, but basically all the HI versions are less than 200x200 pixels.
  • So - what then, hmmmmm - maybe a maximum per symbol width of 300 to 350 pixels? Ok - that seems cool. I'm thinking though that maybe at least 400, because you would still want to keep crisp image qaulity for folks doing poster printing? I'll have to dig into the CC3 files and look them over.
  • MonsenMonsen 🖼️ 44 images Cartographer Administrator
    Remember program usability. There is a reason CC3 uses 4 different resolution, so that it can render smaller, less detailed image when the full detail cannot be properly seen anyway. It takes your computer more time to render a large image versus a smaller image, so you should be careful in regards to throwing more pixels at the image than strictly necessary.

    The VH resolution should be more than enough for poster printing, after all, it is assumed that these symbols will be used in a map, and not simply being blown up to A4 size on their own. 400 pixels is quite ok for the VH resolution though (Results in a HI resoluton of 160). Even 500 (HI = 200) can be acceptable. The important part is how big you wish it to appear in the map though. If the image is intended to appear at the same size as the apple when placed, then you should also use the same resolution. Bottom line is, find one of the existing markers you feel have the appropriate size in the map, then figure out the resolution for this image, and use that as your guide. Also remember that not all of your images need to use the exact same resolution. Using the example from the CC3 symbols, the Apple is quite a bit smaller than the chaos symbol for instance.
  • edited August 2011
    Yeah - like my "Red "X"" mark is 600 wide, but the "numbered "X" marks" are 455 wide. will probably have to trim those up. My scanner cranks'em out HUGE.
  • MonsenMonsen 🖼️ 44 images Cartographer Administrator
    Huge source images is normally a good thing though. Usually better to work with a large image, then downsize it later (Just don't get tempted to add too much details to that huge image, as I believe you already know).

    Most of those images of yours look great btw.
  • edited August 2011
    Thanks Remy. I have done thus far 555 images completed, 406 of those are just number and letter sets. I want to do the whole gambit of D&D monsters and races if I can check out some D&D books at the library (If they have them). I would just be concerned about the legality of it - as I'm sure that Wizards probably claim ownership to all of the characters in there pantheon. In which case - if there are legal sticky issues then the "Gnolls" icon - and the "Drow" and "Drider" icons will have to go.

    A good idea would be to contact them about it and inquire. "Elves, Halflings, Dwarves, Gnomes, Giants, Dragons, etc." would be ok - since those are pretty much public domain concepts since those characterizations have been in existance for about 1500 years or so, lol. I might just look up academic mythological creatures on Wikipedia and do those instead - that way I can cover the D&D folks since most of their monsters are based on real historical mythological concepts anyway, and I can get my creative relief in the process - and really explore what I can produce.

    My only problem is scaling - THAT'S IT! Everything else is covered. It's getting the images to look right on the maps size wise, and it's keeping them from filling up the entire work area in CC3 on the "HI" scale settings.
  • MonsenMonsen 🖼️ 44 images Cartographer Administrator
    I believe Wizards do prefer to keep their registered names to themselves. However, when they released the d20 SRD a few years ago, it did contain quite a few monsters, which you can use freely, as long as you adhere to the terms of the OGL license.

    Note that many monsters do not appear in the document, such as "Beholder", so I would assume those are off-limit for legal reasons, but there is a nice list in there. Also remember to look under the right heading (Drow can be found under E for Elf, and not D for example)
  • edited August 2011
    Remy I just sent Wizards an email - and as usual it's 6000 words or less, lol - and I have also bookmarked both of those pages that you referenced. My concern is for legal kosherness - always, lol.
  • Most knock off fantasy games that have drow type elves just call them Dark Elves to avoid any connection to D&D.

    Wikipedia has this text on Drow.

    The word "drow" is from the Orcadian and Shetlandic dialects of Scots,[5] an alternative form of "trow" (both of which come from the Nordic dökkálfar),[6] which is a cognate for "troll". The Oxford English Dictionary gives no entry for "drow", but two of the citations under "trow" name it as an alternative form of the word. Trow/drow was used to refer to a wide variety of evil sprites. Except for the basic concept of "dark elves", everything else about the Dungeons & Dragon drow was invented by Gary Gygax.[7]

    Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax stated that "Drow are mentioned in Keightley's The Fairy Mythology, as I recall (it might have been The Secret Commonwealth--neither book is before me, and it is not all that important anyway), and as Dark Elves of evil nature, they served as an ideal basis for the creation of a unique new mythos designed especially for the AD&D game."[8] The form "drow" can be found in neither work.[9] Gygax later stated that he took the term from a "listing in the Funk & Wagnall's Unexpurgated Dictionary, and no other source at all. I wanted a most unusual race as the main power in the Underdark, so used the reference to "dark elves" from the dictionary to create the Drow."[10] There seems to be no work with this title. However, the following entry can be found in abridged editions of Funk & Wagnall's Standard Dictionary of the English Language, such as The Desk Standard Dictionary of the English Language: "[Scot.] In folk-lore, one of a race of underground elves represented as skilful workers in metal. Compare TROLL. [Variant of TROLL.] trow"

    Wikipedia has these two bit of info on the beholder.

    The Beholder is among the most classic of all Dungeons & Dragons monsters, appearing in every edition of the game since 1975. They are one of the few classic Dungeons & Dragons monsters that Wizards of the Coast claims as Product Identity.[1]

    Unlike many other Dungeons & Dragons monsters, the beholder is an original creation for D&D, as it is not based on a creature from mythology or other fiction. Rob Kuntz's brother Terry thought up the beholder, and Gary Gygax detailed it for publication.[2]
  • edited August 2011
    Thank you Jay, that is indeed helpful. Remy also sent me a couple of links to the OGL and the open games d20 Monsters List that was also EXTREMELY helpful as well. I thought about doing the Beholder as an overland symbol monster marker - but I didn't get around to it because I wanted to cover the basics first. I took a look at a PDF (that I will not download for legal reasons) of the Monster Manual 3.5, and it seems that Wizards changed a lot of the original characteristics of the Monsters detailed in the original books that I had. The art was a lot more impressive visually - but it lacked the flavor, charm, and spirit of the late David Sutherland III's work. The art was so complex that somehow the characters lost a lot of their original identities to artistic convolution, and asthetic overindulgences (hoo hoo - ain't I a hoity toity hillbilly! Lol).

    For example - the Displacer Beast in the original MM was described and drawn as being a black, panther like creature with two attack tentacles sprouting from it's back - but the newer Wizards version of the animal resembles this original description about as much as an electrical cable resembles a bowl of vanilla ice cream. The only thing that they really kept was the tentacles.
  • edited August 2011
    You might look up OSRIC, a D&D clone. They have their own monster manual, so as to not step on copyright laws. If you need examples on how to do it.


    I don't see any drawings though.
  • The version of the displacer beast in the Monster Cards I had mentioned had blue colored fur if I recall corectly. The Dragon with the small preview art showing all the cards was issue 61. I checked an online index to find it.
    I know PDFs were done for all of the Dragon magazine issues at one time.

    you might find these 2 books helpfull both are by Carol Rose.

    Spirits, Fairies, Leprechauns, and Goblins: An Encyclopedia

    Giants, Monsters, and Dragons: An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend, and Myth
  • edited August 2011
    Ok - first, Thank you Jim - I now have OSRIC bookmarked sir - THANK YOU! That will definitely help.
    Secondly - Jay - those sound like really interesting research materials. Do you know how I can access them - are they on SCRIBD for instance?

    The displacer beast seems to be a character that the D&D folks (no matter WHO owns the D&D name at the time ) likes to change around as much as their underwear.
    I'm a traditionalist and would probably prefer to draw the original incarnation. I can draw oodles of monsters and race class markers, but the question is - whose playing them? Yes - I could draw the legendary Black Bat Woman / Bird Woman of Vietnam, but is it a character that is well established in game play? I need to reference creatures that are actually active in the gaming world, and that's what is so confining, lol..
  • I didn't see them on Scribed you can find them cheap on Amazon & a few other places. It think I paid like $5 for the Giants one.

    Also, note that a lot of stuff your seeing on various creatures from folklore in more recent books & in refrences online is often wrong & omits stuff Many of the better refrence & research books are out of print or are hard to find & your seeing this lack of reserach show up into how these creatures are portrayed in current books, movies, TV, etc. The newer badly researched stuff is sometimes even given as being a good refrence.
  • Oh, more crops symbols to. I like the ones Profantasy has, but not wide enough of a range.
  • edited August 2011
    I'm going to work on that Jim - I'll try to cover as many resource markers as I can. Just as a footnote - this project is growing by leaps, once completed it's going to be huge, but then again - call me Captain Overkill, lol. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.