2006 Mapping competition.

    dunno if that is jpg compression, but if not then the last one's textures look really muddy which ruins the over all scene since it is so well composed.

    Quote from von*ferret

    dunno if that is jpg compression, but if not then the last one's textures look really muddy which ruins the over all scene since it is so well composed.

    it's the jpg compression.

    Quote from skdr

    it's the jpg compression.

    Now I haven't seen a highres screenshot yet so I cannot say emphatically that its the compression. I do know however that I only post the best screens possible and that his textures may be "muddy" for authenticness.

    There are many sandstone churches after all.

    In the end though, I only post top notch screens so I have no clue why his church look the way it does, unless he wants it to look that way or he posted a poorly optimized screen originally.

    My tutorial on screenshot optimization.

    Quote from Orpheus

    it's the jpg compression.

    Now I haven't seen a highres screenshot yet so I cannot say emphatically that its the compression. I do know however that I only post the best screens possible and that his textures may be "muddy" for authenticness.

    My tutorial on screenshot optimization.

    I don't understand why people post muddy/shitty/grainy/badly compressed pictures of their work anyways?

    If I want to show something I've done, I'm always shooting for the best quality. Why make it lowres and muddy if you can go hi-res. People have fast enough connections today if that's what is limiting the job in the compression case.

    Most people have fast enough connections, but not everyone, so it's a courtesy to those who don't to post reasonably sized shots. Its also worth noting that posting 800kb screenshots is gonna go through your host's bandwidth a lot faster than 100-200kb screenshots, which is a perfectly ample file size to aim for unless you are wanting to post particularly hi-res shots. Not a concern if you are using imageshack or something but it might be if you or somebody else with limited bandwidth are hosting your images.

    It's true though - thats not the sharpest or cleanest looking screenshot

    Quote from skdr

    I don't understand why people post muddy/shitty/grainy/badly compressed pictures of their work anyways?

    If I want to show something I've done, I'm always shooting for the best quality. Why make it lowres and muddy if you can go hi-res. People have fast enough connections today if that's what is limiting the job in the compression case.

    Its a common misconception that broadband is widely available. This is wrong. Broadband is widely available only at a certain distance from a city/town. (at least in the states)

    For DSL its a maximum of 3 miles from the nearest hub. With cable its a bit more.

    But the point is, only city folk have the luxury. The total people online may be more dense in towns, but that hardly justifies thinking that "ALL PEOPLE" have broadband.

    As I said, I didn't see the original hi-res shot so I refuse to justify the bad end result. HOWEVER, anyone who posts a screenshot over 100k is annoying to say the least. No screenshot should ever exceed 150 maximum and thats for photographic examples. NEVER game shots.

    Broadband users are the most inconsiderate people online now. Accidental, or deliberate, its all inconsiderate.

    Always seemed odd that someone would take years to learn to map to perfection, but not take 30 seconds to learn to post screens.

    It might be worth pointing out that if you use Photoshop, make sure you use Save for Web instead of Save As when saving JPEGs. Not only do you get more specific compression options down to the percentage and all the comparison stuff, but it also chops out 10-100kb from the file size that's normally filled with superfluous meta data. Try getting a 800x600 jpeg and saving it twice as full quality with the same options under the two save modes and you'll see a difference of around 80kb.

    A lot of people don't realise this, so don't feel patronised those who don't. D;

    Yeah, I head about this photoshop thingy. Problem is, many do not have the program since its not free.

    XAT on the other hand will give a superbly optimized screenshot and will convert it automatically from other formats into .JPG

    Best of all, its totally free and anyone can use it.

    I know that there are many other programs available, but I am a serious advocate to XAT.

    Quote from Polaris

    What about gimp?

    Never used it. Compare them and see is all I can say.

    If gimp can give you top quality at less than 100k, go for it. XAT can and does regularly.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login