Serious question about screen shots.

As you may have noticed, I recently did a full critique for Leps competition map. All those screens that I posted are directly from the HL2DM screenshot folder. NO OPTIMIZATION AT ALL was done to them.

My question is 2 fold really.

1) Is my machine so pathetic that the screenshots posted are an indicator?

2) Are people whom post screenshots upward of 300k deliberately inflating the shots?

the screens i posted are 800x600, but that was on purpose, they fit the snarkpit, but otherwise i didn't do anything to make them come out the way they are.

now this is a serious inquiry, because I truly think something is wrong. My machine is not bottom rung nasty.

before you ask, I have seen 800x600 at well over 200k and the shots looked no better/worse than mine.

I think you have a nice program that does some good optimization automatically. Plus the level is quite low in colour variation, so it's gunna have a small file size.

no myrk, this wasn't about XAT, it was about my PC. I didn't alter the screenshots at all.

what i need some people to do is, take some screenshots, and post the stats of them for me, along with your PC stats. I wanna do an unofficial test on this.

those screens i posted in the critique were 100% pure. i wanna know why they are so small.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
The screens i posted are 800x600, but that was on purpose, they fit the snarkpit, but otherwise i didn't do anything to make them come out the way they are.

</DIV></DIV>
You changed the size, therefore compressed.

So you want us to take a screenshot of a map and post the stats? We will all have to take a picture of the exact same view otherwise the file sizes are gunna be all different.

Well, i've noticed that all screenshots I take on one of my testmaps come out black with blurry rectangles on them. Does anyone know why?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Myrk-</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
You changed the size, therefore compressed.

So you want us to take a screenshot of a map and post the stats? We will all have to take a picture of the exact same view otherwise the file sizes are gunna be all different.

</DIV></DIV>

the screens were unaltered.. i run the game at 800x600 myrk :razz:

as for the map the screens are of, all i am interested in is, are the screens small due to resolution of the game, which is due to my poor hardware stats.

what i am finding difficult to accept is, how can there be a difference of 60k to 300k. if my machine 5 times less.
anywho's, i dunno what i mean but on the plus side, HL2 seems to take screens in .jpg now instead of .bmp like it used to. :/

Well i have the same problem, my screenshots look like crap yoo.

But i have a verry old pc.
Most people here have these fast pcs where maps automaticaly look better on sceenshots becouse it renders everthing properly.
Mine renders everything in range of 2 meters and all that that is rendered looks awfull :smile:

(my screenshots are small too :smile: )

What's the problem.

Factor 1: Quality settings

You can have a 800*600 screenshot with JPEG quality set to 100 %, resulting in 300 kb.

You can have a 800*600 screenshot with JPEG quality set to 80 %, resulting in 100 kb.

It's all about the quality settings, really. Quality set to 10 % will
result in a very blurry box with mixed colors in it. I advise to use
quality settings between 50 % and 80%, but take a look at the other
factors too.

<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Factor 2: Repeating colors

</span>

Like every other compressor, Jpeg compresses file by recognizing
repeating patterns. Fire up paint or any other program, draw a
1600*1200 black box, and save it as Jpeg with 100 % quality. Still 8 kb
or something.

Now, do the same, but fill every pixel you've got with a different color..
There you have your 1.2 Mb Jpeg file, you might aswell save it as a
BMP, because there just isn't any pattern or repeating color in it, and
so ... no compression.

Likewise, screenshots of maps which show not a lot of color variety, or
maps which are very dark overall, or very light overall will have a
smaller size.

<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Factor 3: Jpeg Version

</span>I noticed that compressing with a recent Jpeg compressor
is much better. MSPaint uses an older compressor, so likewise the
compressed files are sometimes poor quality ones, and pretty big too.
Download Irfanview or Xat, they use Jpeg compressors with better
recognition algorithms and stuff.

My best guess is, HL2 uses a pretty new Jpeg compressor, with quality
set to 100%.

Update: found it:

To change the quality or compression factor for future JPEG screenshots, use the command <i style="font-weight: bold;">jpeg_quality 90</i>
where 90 represents the default compression of 10%. This means your
picture will still maintain a quality level of 90, this is a very
decent JPEG with minimal loss of quality. To take an unaltered TARGA (*.tga) screenshot, you would use the <i style="font-weight: bold;">screenshot</i> command, similar to the snapshot command from Half-Life 1.

So, if you want full control over your screenies, save them in targa,
then compress them to your likings by using a program like Irfanview or
XAT.

Do you guys think I should write a tut about it ? Including how to
compress screenshots ? Could be a lot of help for people getting the
"huge screens ! argh !" comments.

Why do you use such a low screen resolution Orph? Whats your PC specs? You should have a radeon 9800 Pro - 9600XT or equivalent by now or else I'd say you need a better GFX card, and probably a better PC full stop.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Forceflow</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
Do you guys think I should write a tut about it ? Including how to compress screenshots ? Could be a lot of help for people getting the "huge screens ! argh !" comments.

</DIV></DIV>

i requested to do this tut months ago, i was denied. you better not get to do it. :razz:

as for the experiment, i suppose you answered it bud. thanx.
you know my fixation on screenshot sizes, you think for a second, i would NOT have wanted to make a tutorial on this? :/

Why were you denied ? I think - looking at most of the newly submitted maps - it's bloody needed.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Myrk-</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Why do you use such a low screen resolution Orph? </DIV></DIV>

as you well know, i have done quite a few critiques. i learned ages ago, if you set the resolution of the game to 800x600 you don't need to resize all those screenshots by hand. so i preset it to 800x600 in advance.

XAT can optimize better than any other program, but if the screenshot is 1024x768 before its optimized, it will remain so afterward. it does nothing about resizing.

anywho's, thats in answer to your question.
as i said however, i have seen 800x600 screenshots weighing in at a hefty 200 plus. i still am unclear how. :sad:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Forceflow</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Why were you denied ? I think - looking at most of the newly submitted maps - it's bloody needed.</DIV></DIV>

i was not turned down, i submitted nothing. i asked, the answer was no. end of story.

contrary to popular belief, i do not argue with "NO"
my answer was blue force flow, if you can do it, go ahead, just you better include some screenshots of XAT in action :razz:

as i said however, i have seen 800x600 screenshots weighing in at a hefty 200 plus. i still am unclear how. :sad:

I did explain it clearly, no ?

It's a combination of compression settings, compressing library and repeating-ness of the image.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Forceflow</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

I did explain it clearly, no ?

It's a combination of compression settings, compressing library and repeating-ness of the image.
</DIV></DIV>

lets assume something a second.. i collected a screenshot, it was 65k, and i set nothing, it was default

person B collects a screenshot, same size but its 200k.. they obviously increased the file size, why?

HL2 has changed their screenshots from BMP to JPG thats good, but why would anyone deliberately inflate the image file size? we all know what a high res screen looks like, it doesn't really make a map look better/worse to post a screenshot at default.

but still, i think its my machine. HL2 scanned it and set it by my hardware. perhaps its 65k cause it thinks its supposed to be.
somehow though, i still think people are deliberately changing the default some. :/

Forceflow said:
I did explain it clearly, no ?

It's a combination of compression settings, compressing library and repeating-ness of the image.

lets assume something a second.. i collected a screenshot, it was 65k, and i set nothing, it was default

person B collects a screenshot, same size but its 200k.. they obviously increased the file size, why?

Perfectly possible.

Maybe the other person is taking a screenshot of a more varied scene.
Maybe there's a difference in the in-game brightness and contrast
settings, which makes the color differences more or less.

Here's the difference. Both images taken with the same settings.

Image 1: Pretty dark, not much color variation. 53 kb



Image 2: Light, a lot of color variation (different shades of brown in the water). 141 kb



As you can see, image size just doubled, even with the same settings and compression.

so it might not be my hardware?

coolness...i think we might put this on hold till i do a couple more critiques then.

lets see how my critiques of Reno and Omegas map go.

thanx force :smile:

I just had a look see at Reno's competition map. I took 11 screenshots. sizes ranged from 91k to 181k. so i reckon you were 100% dead on Force.

thanx ol man.

BTW Duncan's entry? :eek:

[edit] For the record, the critique was a private one, so you guys will have to take my word for its ecellence :biggrin:

also, Xat reduced the images successfully. with no degredation. anyone posting screens over 85k is being deliberately rude.

Ehm, I'm just jumping in here, but...

I understand not putting any effort in your screenshots shows off bad.
But at the other hand... I'm a mapper, not a .jpg specialist. I do save
my screenshots as .jpg's but that's generally as far as I go. Why would
I need to delve into it? Nearly all people are satisfied by these
.jpg's, and there's only very few that complain about these filesizes.
You being one of them... :wink:

Sure, saving as .bmp's would be just too bad, but you can also go too
far. When an expert mapper shows off his map, I'm not going to hit him
because his screenshots were a bit over 85k or such. I think it's not
important in such a case since it's about the map, not about the
screenshots size.

My 2 cents...

this is not a bitch, just a reply to a question, try to read it all before you decide how to comment.

i see it like this, forget for moment that they are screenshots, but just another method of showing of ones wares.

lets assume this is just a continuation of the mapping process. an author comes to us and asked, "what can i do to improve this work?" the few of us whom even try to answer will point out this or that to do what the person asked.

lets assume the author did everything and the map still didn't do what it was designed to do. someone may say "i heard of these new tools that could cut your R's by 20 percent" the guy is more than likely going to go get said tools.

now, what if no one mentioned the tools, whom would be the worse? the mapper or the people keeping the secret?

mapping and mapping forums are processes that work two ways, the person coming asking for advice, and the persons giving it. if any person expects to be given good advice, they must first teat people with the respect the request deserves.

it is not a good idea to be rude, insensitive or even arrogant when making a request of people in regards to asking favors.

everyone wants to think of this as only images and file sizes, but its more that that because its a direct reflection upon the person whom they belong to.

now back to the file sizes. if the tools or application did not exist to control the output, and make them in such a way as to be acceptable, then one would next ask for people to upload less images to cut down on the file sizes.

you will notice, no one ever asks why someone posted to many screens.

you know whats the very worse thing about all this? that some even has to ask. it should be a perfectly acceptable request "he buddy, can you reduce those by 50%?" the fact that i have to bother reminding folks how rude it is is the worse part of this whole discussion. the fact that it has been turned into something worse than it began.. well its hard to put into words actually.

bottomline, no one should be expected to tolerate something thats as easy as this is to avoid.

when you think about it. why has it? we are not just a group of people with broadband, we are a community that should work together as a whole. it should not be turned into a few policing a few people should have enough to police themselves.

anyways, it is entirely possible to create screenshots well below the ones some use. its not as if this is an epidemic, its isolated individuals.. believe it or not, most say "oops" and fix the error.

one thing you must consider, there are a few vocal members here, but there is also a silent vast majority. just because they are not talking, doesn't mean they are not thinking "what an ass, look at these huge screens"

anywho's, think on this, why does it have to be a battle, when its so easy to use the tools we have?

/ 2 cents

I see your points. And I agree that it's good to give the guy a helping
hand by hinting at some good tools, in this case better .jpg exporters.
And sure that's ok for me to say so once, but I think it's just too far
to say this immediatly when someones screenshots filesizes are a bit
over what your exporter creates.

Sure, you should mind your public when showing off your work, and I
think it's no more than logical to keep the size (and amount) of
screenshots reasonable. But I don't think they have to be as small or
optimized as possible. I've seen you talking about it a few times and
it seemed as if it was your main point. I think that's beyond the
importance of the subject.

Ow well, perhaps this resembles the 'no-screenshot' issue. Makes the
mapper look very lazy when he doesn't provide a screenshot. And usually
there's always a few people that tell him to give a screenshot first.
It's part of the presentation. And indeed, so is the file size of the
screenshot, too large files load slower and people will just think: why
didn't he take that little effort to make it all that easier for us?

Totally understandable. But to me it seems as if you watch those
filesizes too closely. As if everything above, say, 85k is a sin...

At least that's the impression you make to me since it's always you
that's talking about it. Perhaps a wrong impression, as I understand
your intentions now and agree to them, but that's the way it
conversates to me, you know...

// No hard feelings, but just the way I see it...

you know what..? you're all right, if no one but me wants to complain. then why am i, i have more broadband width than most. if i cannot get any help, then let the silent ones do it or deal.

i will be making notes of the people posing oversized screens. no one says i must be kind to them. i will give them exactly as much respect as they give us first. :/

enough about screen sizes for one year.

you silent ones, tough.

Don't get me wrong, I aprreciate that you want to help... it's just
that I think it gives off a negative impression when you do so each
time or continually. (Not helping I mean, I mean hitting the filesize subject, wich may not always look straight like helping.)

Seems like those with good intentions aren't always the lucky ones?
Yeah, that's how I felt at TWHL. Helping continually but getting yelled
at when I said something like 'bad performance, run VIS'. That tends to
discourage, yeah...

Perhaps it's best to help only if someone asks for it? For these people seem to be the kind that will appreciate your help?

Heck, perhaps I'll even start to look at file sizes...

the whole screenshot thing is something that could have been resolved a long time ago, when it was suggested that any pics posted above a certain filesize should be replaced with a standard forum image that requests the uploader to reduce his original filesize. maybe Lep decided it wasn't important enough an issue to be alienating potentially good forum members over, which, Orph, is what your 'passion' for the subject often does. i agree that people posting pics and asking for help will get on a lot better if they do so courteously. i also believe that people posting answers or requests to alter pic sizes should do so in the same manner.

over the past couple of years, however, your attemps at communicating you desire for people to post smaller filesizes has deteriorated into what looks like aggresive trolling. i don't believe that you intend it this way, but seriously, that's the way it comes across. letting the people that this directly effects complain about it first, and then copy/pasting one of your older posts that actually explain the benefits of file compession in a more decorous manner, would, in my opinion, cause a lot less friction, as there would at least be a tangible reason for the subject to have been raised in the first place.

i remember seeing a pic that said something like 'no bmp foo' [reminiscent of monqui's 'I R MORON' masterpiece], that was intended to replace any .bmp's that were posted. did it ever get used?

speaking of pics, i was searching for bridge pics, and came up with this. a brilliant example of how a cantilever brige works, whether your an engineer or not.

the thing is guys, its not a bad idea.

once upon a time, this idea had the support of the entire site, as time went one people stopped commenting, one by one people just stopped. the thing is, it went on for so long that people noticed "whats the use?"

the major issue is, that it did indeed go on to long. people left till it appears that only i am carrying on the crusade. sure every once in a while someone says something, but its done in such a "person friendly" way that its less than a slap on the wrist.

the real issue is when someone flat out refuses to comply, and clearly say "f**k you, if you don't like it don't look"

take mystic for instance, i may have said it un-tactfully, BUT i did say PLEASE. please is not a tactless comment, unless its used in a patronizing way. mystic was so new, there could not be any misunderstanding about patronizing. i said please, compliance was the order of the day as far as snarkpit was concerned, but.. due to interventions poorly handled, i became the bad guy.

the bottomline is this, it has been reduced to this because of the time frame not because it is bad to post screenshots below 100k. those of you who have been here the longest should remember, i firmly believe you can keep them below 50k, i was talked into accepting 100k by being over ruled in that belief.

i chose 85 k, in the hopes that they will indeed post screens below 100k

anyways, as i said, if the silent ones cannot speak up.. tough. you just lost your last banner carrier on this.

tis sad when people "kill the messenger" :sad: