Image Editing

try THIS

not only does it do jpgs, but gifs and png's as well.

it adds captions for those who want to add a footnote to their pics.

it has come to my attention at PFL, that the PNG photo image is superior in some ways to a JPG when posting images for website purposes (and this qualifies i think).

PNG's have excellent compression, and better quality in some cases than JPG's do.

best of all PSP can convert them.

hope this helps.

Yes, PNG is an excellent format.
I always forget to use PNGs instead of JPGs though.

Well I'd use it if it didn't stick a XAT logo in the corner :/

Leperous said:
Well I'd use it if it didn't stick a XAT logo in the corner :/

It does?

where?

ORIGINAL

EDITED FIRST ROUND

EDITED SECOND TIME

I do NOT want to get caught promoting defective programs, here or at PFL, so if there is something that needs addressed lep, show me.

(yes i know the first pic was large, it was only posted for comparative purposes, i will remove it if its very important i do so)

Hmm, well before it put some small text saying 'xat.com' in the corner of my images- but it was the shareware version!

Leperous said:
Hmm, well before it put some small text saying 'xat.com' in the corner of my images- but it was the shareware version!

arrg, you could be correct, i was stupid and downloaded the newer version this morning, not realizing i had an older one already.

i am unsure that if i click on the icon, if it is accessing the newer, or older program, even though i do in fact have both icons.

you could be correct :sad:

lemme see if i can confirm my versions.

Being the great guy I am, I just imprt images into Flash and then add text/effects as I please. Then export. Done.

Sadly Lep, you are correct.

the good news is, the caption is tiny, and can be cropped with PSP, but if you can do that then you have PSP and don't need this program... or do you? can someone verify that xat optimise's an image better than PSP?

I dunno, you can use pretty much any image editing program (Paint?!) to convert your image to jpg and resize it to 640x480. That alone should get the filesize within reason.

I am loaning filespace to some Action UT2k3 mappers, I need to explain to them that you need to use JPGs not GIFs ffs, 1-2mb screenshots are ridiculous

Jinx said:
I dunno, you can use pretty much any image editing program (Paint?!) to convert your image to jpg and resize it to 640x480. That alone should get the filesize within reason.

if, as you mention its so easy, why do so many fail?

Jinx said:
I am loaning filespace to some Action UT2k3 mappers, I need to explain to them that you need to use JPGs not GIFs ffs, 1-2mb screenshots are ridiculous

points up to previous quote.

my condolences to your misery :/

I use ACDSee to compress my images :smile:

http://www.acdsystems.com/

i dont know what the image sizes are in Xat, but in PSP, an 800x600 jpg lands at around 45-55 kb for me, but then again, im special... :heee:

Doc B... :dodgy:

Dr Brasso said:
iim special... :heee:

Doc B... :dodgy:

yeah, i noticed the forehead too, but being the respectable individual i am, i didn't mention it till you did.. it is rather large.

and xat will produce a 25k to 80k image at 800x600

ouch....welcome back, you old fart...

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

neat avatar, Brasso

I usually use 640x480, then run it once through the 'sharpen' filter in Photoshop and save at about 6-8 quality. I kinda like that, because it keeps the screenshot smaller but the sharpen helps retain detail and makes it look crisp. That's usually around 80-100k I think, though I am usually willing to sacrifice some filesize for quality if I'm showing something off.

my opinion is, whatever it takes to get a file size down to under 100k is mighty fine.

with that said, people usually don't even bother to experiment or even attempt a new program because... they either feel their expensive program already does it all, or the new one isn't expensive enough to bother with.

i have found that, PSP8 and PS7 are extremely similar and do almost the same thing in producing a smallish file size, but i have also found that xat produces a still smaller file size with high levels of quality, when you combine its magi-compression with the jpg optimizer, both found in the jpg optimizer program.. i have found little advantage to the image optimizer EXCEPT its ability to do more than jpg conversions and its text addition ability.

end results is what matters guys, i can have an 800x600 high quality image at extremely small files, while you are stuck with your 640x480 ones at the same file sizes as mine.

the choice seems easy, but.....

bottom line, i will notice images over 100k, and will point them out anytime i feel they are unwarranted, if you want to fight about it then, so be it, but I'd rather have harmony now about it.

be good

I think it depends on what you are doing images for, too. if I am showing a few pics of a map to show it off, I'll make sure they are really good quality even if the filesizes are slightly higher. If I am using a bunch of pics to show someone a bug in a map etc., I will use smaller images (320x240 even) and lower quality.

Anyway, as long as people aren't posting anything ridiculously huge, or too many at once, I don't think it's that big a deal...

Jinx said:
Anyway, as long as people aren't posting anything ridiculously huge, or too many at once, I don't think it's that <I>big a deal...</I>

this about sums it all up :smile:

post summary.... :heee:

im hoping Leps got unlimited webspace, cause im thinkin' hes got one on the line here... :wink: his call on quality vs quality vs quantity....bottom line.

Doc B... :dodgy:

Jinx said:
then run it once through the 'sharpen' filter in Photoshop and save at about 6-8 quality. I kinda like that, because it keeps the screenshot smaller but the sharpen helps retain detail and makes it look crisp

I've seen lots of other mappers catch hell for doing that. To give the most recent example off the top of my head, the now-dead Dark Truths. Sharpening map screens is sort of like false advertising, making the map look better and more crisp than it really is. While I'm sure that wasn't your intention, I'm pretty sure it's frowned upon anyway.

My two cents: XAT is an image-optimizer. Photoshop is a full-featured editing suite. I use Photoshop. The end.

Campaignjunkie said:
My two cents: XAT is an image-optimizer. Photoshop is a full-featured editing suite. I use Photoshop. The end.

i concur, if one has photoshop, which seems unlikely judging from most of the screens i have seen.

PSP8 is a great substitute, and available to everyone interested.

XAT is not intended to be used for textures, or ANYTHING to where image quality is a must

XAT is an image optimizer, and should never be confused with anything other than an image optimizer.

for all intent and purposes, XAT is exactly what most of snarkpits image posts require, assuming you have no decent way of reducing file sizes.

IMO one click with XAT is much preferable to the many steps involved with a paint program, look at it as the frontend compiler for pictures, all the settings are preset for small.

if its not to imposing, i think i will continue to promote xat till everyone figures out how to use PS and PSP correctly.

PaintShop Pro is great for optimizing images. I usually use a combination of Photoshop and PSP because Photoshop likes to have huge files for no real reason, the quality is neglible. Oh well, I recommend a combo of the two.

I think its bulls**t about sharpening being false advertising. Personally I find screenshots tend to be dull looking slightly blurry versions of the maps appearance in game, and as such I always resize, sharpen, and set the contrast to around 10, to try and return it to its original look.

Yeah, what Reno said. I RUN the game in higher res, so when I shrink it down I would like to restore some of the detail that's lost. and how HL looks in-game varies a lot on your video card and its detail settings. I think screenies etc. actually looked better on my old Voodoo 5 than this GF4. That card had great texture detail settings.

You maps will also look a lot more crisp if you use only textures with dimensions of 16, 32, 64, 128, & 256.

You have to look at it from the other side of the coin as well. When a modeller shows a nice pretty render they use programs like Brazil to enhance the post rendering process. When I create textures for wads I don't add anything to the end process other then making the file size double of what it should be. Mappers are just trying to show something that looks more appealing than the original. HL was pretty in it's day but you just can't compete any longer with the new tech of today.

FoX1

1 word: Gameplay

I think HL still can compete with lots of games these days.