CC3: Image Importing and Resolution Limits, anybody know this?
Terraformer_Author
Newcomer
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?
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?
Comments
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.
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.
Most of those images of yours look great btw.
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.
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)
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]
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.
OSRIC
I don't see any drawings though.
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
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..
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.