72 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwald the Wise]

A few photos that I think will be useful for backgrounds.

 

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://s1108.photobu...2015"></iframe>

[ussnorway]

Nice photos Wise, I think I will have to use one...

[Grimwald the Wise]

@USS Norway

 

Feel free to do so.

 

Sadly my wife has decided that will have to be our last trek. Still 4500m for OAPs isn't bad. My daughter is now saying that she can't have us holding the family record for altitude, so she will have to go again. (Any excuse. She hated climbing when she was a teenager, but now she loves it. )

[ussnorway]

I went with this one... touched the dry brush a bit for that painted look.

p.s. Her kids will have to book a seat to Mars in order to win this bet?

[Grimwald the Wise]

I went with this one... touched the dry brush a bit for that painted look.

p.s. Her kids will have to book a seat to Mars in order to win this bet?

 

 

Looks good.

 

As far as our competitiveness is concerned, neither of us has climbed a Himal, just base camps, so that leaves plenty of scope for the progeny if they arrive.

[ussnorway]

Katarina

 

 

Large = http://www.nibbit.net/assets/katm.bmp

 

Small = http://www.nibbit.net/assets/kats.bmp

 

orgin ref = http://apotheosiscos...rsion-571171123

[Dyara]

Perhaps it's just my installation but in my BGs, the large portrait looks much better if it's 171*268 (instead of 169*266) because (my) BG will scale it to 171x268 otherwise (and you'll get an ugly blur effect). Make a screenshot from the char screen, cut out the portrait and then check width and height or compare it with the original portrait and you'll see the difference.

[ussnorway]

Left to right is bitmap portrait, original image and screenshot from the game… I don’t see the issue at my end.

 

 

The game files are bitmaps and screenshots (taken with modern computers) should be a png … these are both high quality images but a blueish blur would indicate a black pixel has been strewed out of its proportions.

 

Are you using jpegs?

 

If you stretch a black image as a jpeg it does always give the effect you are talking about and most images on the net (forums) tend to be jpeg so you need to convert these into bitmaps before the game can rendor them… I always post mine as bitmaps (that’s why they are just links) so people can just drop them in but I would recommend converting your jpeg to PNGs then crop a few pixels off the end and resize before converting to bitmaps… this should correct any distortion.

[Dyara]

Here's an older portrait of my char (on the left in 169x266) and the same portrait (on the right) extracted from a screenshot (it has become 171x268); unfortunately bmps are not allowed so I had to make them pngs but the difference is still there, for example in the original the hair is much more detailed, the eyes as well:

 

 

The difference is best to be seen if you download both pic, put them in the same folder and cycle through them with for example irfanview.

 

The next portrait (on the left) is a newer one, it's 171x268 and the extracted portrait from the screenshot (on the right) looks more or less the same.

 

 

Once I had seen this I started to make all my large portrait 171x268.

 

Here's a zip file with all the four pics as bmp: https://www.dropbox.....zip?raw=1&dl=0

 

[edit]Nice portrait btw... should give Katarina defintely some sort of distraction advantage in combat. However it looks like parts of her right shoulder are lost.[/edit]

[Dyara]

To test this further I've made two test portraits (one 169x266, the other 171x268) that consists of black and white stripes (1px size):

 

(169x266, for a link for the bmps see below).

 

Then I used these portraits with my current char and made a screenshot (you have to click the screenshots to see the difference because otherwise the scaling will cloak the effect):

 

Here the 169x266 portrait is used:

 

and here the slightly larger 171x268 portrait is used:

 

[editl]I've extracted the interesting parts here (again clicking the pics might be required if they aren't shown in their original size) ...

 

and

(169x266 portrait left, 171x268 portrait right)[/edit]

 

 

This is done with BG2EE 1.3 but it's the same with the current version (I don't owe BG2EE 2.x but I saw the effect with BG1EE 2.x as well).

 

To make the test yourself here are the test portraits as bmps: https://www.dropbox....u/test.zip?dl=0

[ussnorway]

Here's an older portrait of my char (on the left in 169x266) and the same portrait (on the right) extracted from a screenshot (it has become 171x268); unfortunately bmps are not allowed so I had to make them pngs but the difference is still there, for example in the original the hair is much more detailed, the eyes as well:

 

snip...

 

[edit]Nice portrait btw... should give Katarina defintely some sort of distraction advantage in combat. However it looks like parts of her right shoulder are lost.[/edit]

 

I see tone | highlight different but the actual detail looks the same to me.

 

 

p.s, Thanks I admit to picking her class based on the fact she doesn’t wear armour… literally a case of playing to her strengths because she can’t physically carry it.

[Dyara]

Depending on the portrait the difference might not be big, but it's there... has to be there always because BG has to rescale the 169x266 size portrait to 171x268. And for me there's no more work required to make a 171x268 pic than to make a 169x266 one. So why should I make a portrait of the wrong size that looks worse if I can just as easily make a portrait of the right size that looks better? Makes no sense .

[ussnorway]

Depending on the portrait the difference might not be big, but it's there... has to be there always because BG has to rescale the 169x266 size portrait to 171x268. And for me there's no more work required to make a 171x268 pic than to make a 169x266 one. So why should I make a portrait of the wrong size that looks worse if I can just as easily make a portrait of the right size that looks better? Makes no sense .

thats fare mate, do what works for you I'm just thinking it may be your g-card because I can't recreate the issue at my end.

[Dyara]

I can't recreate the issue at my end.

Perhaps you're playing with the interface scaled? Because of course then you can't recreate the issue as in this case BG has to rescale the portrait anyway, regardless what the original size was.

 

I play on 1920x1200, interface not scaled and for taking screenshots I switch to windowed mode.

[ussnorway]

Sarah Darknight Sharman

 

Large  = http://www.nibbit.net/assets/sarm.bmp

 

Small  = http://www.nibbit.net/assets/sars.bmp

[Grimwald the Wise]

[edit]Nice portrait btw... should give Katarina defintely some sort of distraction advantage in combat. However it looks like parts of her right shoulder are lost.[/edit]

 

The selection tool probably had the wrong setting. This has happened to me on numerous occasions when the background that I am wanting to delete has been a similar colour to the image that I am wanting to keep.

 

I have wondered if that is deliberate on the part of the person who made the original image. i.e. They don't want anyone to alter their artwork.

 

It certainly appears to be the case on occasion.

[Grimwald the Wise]

Depending on the portrait the difference might not be big, but it's there... has to be there always because BG has to rescale the 169x266 size portrait to 171x268. And for me there's no more work required to make a 171x268 pic than to make a 169x266 one. So why should I make a portrait of the wrong size that looks worse if I can just as easily make a portrait of the right size that looks better? Makes no sense .

 

Mine are 210 x 330, but then, they take up more disc space, and yours look fine, so perhaps I don't need to have them so large.

 

On a slightly different topic, but linked, have others been annoyed that most of the images of women in armour on the web have their lipstick and hair FAR too imaculate? It is a bit like fighting women in films looking as if they have just come out of the hairdresser's shop. Not realistic at all.

[ussnorway]

its assumed they look good before the combat so the image is taken then... lipstick isn't something that gets messed in standard combat?

[Grimwald the Wise]

I prefer those with a few smudges of dirt on their faces. I was with my daughter this morning just before she set off cycling with her husband.

Was she imaculate? No.

Was she when she picked up her doctorate? Yes!

Does she wear make-up when she is knows she will be doing filthy work in an engineering laboratory? Not on your life!

Both women and men dress according to the situation.

After surveying on a demolition site for just two hours, I would be filthy as would the women engineers that I worked with.

I just like a bit of realism.

[ussnorway]

I agree to a point… in my mind, Kat has good charisma and is done up for that image because the party is returning to the mart with bags full of loot to trade for supplies.

 

I do on occasion add smudges but the original image is studio portrait and they don’t work well… for the grunge look you do better by capturing a screenshot image from a film because the actors here are actually moving around their environment it is easier to get the REAL look you want.

 

Tip; use the largest screen tv or crank your monitor resolution up when snapping these because the more pixels = crisper finished image.

[ussnorway]

Mine are 210 x 330, but then, they take up more disc space, and yours look fine, so perhaps I don't need to have them so large.

 

On a slightly different topic, but linked, have others been annoyed that most of the images of women in armour on the web have their lipstick and hair FAR too imaculate? It is a bit like fighting women in films looking as if they have just come out of the hairdresser's shop. Not realistic at all.

[ussnorway]

[Dyara]