Moderator: Cartographers
Yeah, the 1st mountains only had blurred edges. I don't think it would work for the map. The style of the map is very much about sharp, defined lines and shapes. If you look around the map, there aren't many places with blurred or smooth transitions between colours, all the edges between colours are pretty well defined. The outer bevel around the land is probably the only exception.isaiah40 wrote:No, no no! Just the edges, just a smidgen so they look more on the map. But it's your call, and if no one else thinks they need that then ...


Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
I know. But if I save it as JPEG, and then lack compresses it into a smaller JPEG, then the JPEG artifacts from the first conversion accumulate - it's like taking a photo-copy of a photo-copy... by saving it as a PNG, then letting lack do the conversion directly from it, there will be less quality loss and artifacts.gimil wrote:Wow your image seems to look fresher as a PNG, remember though that lack tends to resize images before uploading maps. Otherwise he will end up with huge amounts of used bandwidth.

Fair play!natty_dread wrote:I know. But if I save it as JPEG, and then lack compresses it into a smaller JPEG, then the JPEG artifacts from the first conversion accumulate - it's like taking a photo-copy of a photo-copy... by saving it as a PNG, then letting lack do the conversion directly from it, there will be less quality loss and artifacts.gimil wrote:Wow your image seems to look fresher as a PNG, remember though that lack tends to resize images before uploading maps. Otherwise he will end up with huge amounts of used bandwidth.
Yes, maybe the difference is minute, but since we're forced to have our work converted into low quality JPEG:s, every small thing helps.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong






Fortunately, Denmark doesn't have any forests.Evil DIMwit wrote:It's kind of strange that the forests are so close in color and texture to Denmark.
