![]() ![]() I would suggest you change the 100% to be a usable size – maybe 25%. You can either select each tile you wish to add to the tileset, or click the first tile and then press Control+A to select all tiles.Īll tiles will now be added to the set. Navigate to the ““NewTiles” folder and then to the sub folder “6圆 Basic Tiles (Cover)”į. Ensure “Dungeon Tiles 1” is the selected layer.Į. Double click the “Object Layer 1” and rename it to “Dungeon Tiles 1”.Ĭ. Map Size Width = 60 tiles, Height = 60 tiles.Ĭ. (3) Create a New Map with the following parameters:ī. (1) Start the installed Tiled application from (3) above. If you make a mistake – you will need to delete the files in the “NewTiles” folders and re-extract from the downloaded tile set as in (2) above.Īt the end of this process all tiles (except Overlays) in the “NewTiles” folder will now be resized to 100px and are ready for use. The convert process will take a few minutes. Thin in XnConvert click on Convert button. This will add all of the images to the convert rules. Once you have Highlighted all of the folders in “NewTiles”, drag and drop these on the Input folder of XnConvert. Highlight all of the folders but Overlays – you will have to resize the files in Overlays one by one as they are at different sizes/scales. Look in the “NewTiles” folder on your desktop from (2) and you will see a list of folders. The above selection will take any files and resize them to be 600px by 600px. When output files already exist = Replace Width & Height = 600 pixels (as we want 6 squares at 100px per square).Į. This will keep the physical file size of the final map to a useable size for upload/downloading in game.Ĭ. Therefore each square on the tile sets represent 5ft we have a scale of 5ft = 200px.Ī scale of 200px=5ft would be usable, but I prefer to resize these to a scale of 100px=5ft or on a large map 50px=5ft. Therefore each square on each tile has an area of 1200/6 = 200px. The tile set you downloaded in (2) above is set where each tile is made up of 6 squares by 6 squares and has an image size of 1200 pixels (px) by 1200 pixels (px) per tile. This means each square = 5ft and will be 100 pixels by 100 pixels. If the quantization tables follow the standard trend of limited compression in the low-frequency components rising to moderate compression in the high-frequency components, then the approximate quality factor may indeed give one an idea as to how the overall quality may appear.The tiles you have downloaded should be converted to a standard size – I use several size, but for the purpose of this guide we will use 100px = 5ft (or 1 square). Therefore, as an incredibly rough approximation, a calculation has been made for each source to derive the closest / approximate IJG quality factor for a given table. So, what about other digicams / software editors that didn't use the IJG scaling method? People always love to make comparisons, and comparing multiple 64-element matrices is not intuitive to the average person. If we know that a given program has used the IJG scaling method, then we can indeed make a comparison, because all numbers in the matrices will move according to the algorithm in a similar manner. That said, many software programs and some digicams are indeed using scaled versions of this standard table. A quality factor of 100 does not mean Lossless compression! Instead, it generally represents the quality factor that will generate the highest quality compressed image with the provided scaling algorithm. This is NOT a percentage! It is merely a number from 1-100 representing the scaling factor used in generating the table. The IJG group has proposed a method of scaling these coefficients according to a “quality factor” scale. So, then why are “quality” numbers listed for each camera/software source? Many programs encode their JPEG images using quantization tables that are generated by scaling the coefficients in a “standard“ table that is provided in the ITU-T specification. Trying to make a comparison between a pair of matrices is not at all straightforward (or always possible). JPEG compression quality is actually defined by a pair of quantization tables (each with an array of 64 values). ![]() Calvin Hass (Comparing JPEG Quality » Important note about Quality Factors) wrote:It is extremely important that the reader understand that compression quality cannot truly be represented by a single value. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |