# Pixels/square of Battlemaps



## Morrus (Jul 19, 2011)

Hopefully this is the info that MapTools users needed (thanks to [MENTION=8701]d20Monkey[/MENTION]):

Docks: 59
King’s Arrival: 27
Tower: 75
Coaltongue: 31
Hedge Maze: 37
Sea Cave: 63


----------



## rangda (Jul 20, 2011)

Morrus that's great.  If you make future maps available for download in a zip could you include that data as a text file in the zip?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2011)

rangda said:


> Morrus that's great. If you make future maps available for download in a zip could you include that data as a text file in the zip?




Yeah, either that or we might create a master list here on the forums.  Brian suggested we include the info *on* the map, but I feel that might be jarring to the people who don't use Map Tools.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jul 21, 2011)

What if it were part of the filename?


----------



## Colmarr (Jul 21, 2011)

Is anyone else getting weird results with these? @OnlineDM ?

The coaltongue map I extracted from IaAoW seems to be approx 21pps.

The hedge maze map from the IaAoW appears to be about 19pps. The copy I took from Morrus' battlemap preview thread appears to be approx 35 pps, but neither of them are 37.

I'm dropping the maps in MS Paint to do my measurements. Are my numbers being screwed up somehow?


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 21, 2011)

I haven't tried them yet; I plan to give them a go this weekend. I'll let you know what I find.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 21, 2011)

I just did the Coaltongue (the DM version from page 49 - the 52nd page of the PDF) and it was at a scale of 28.875 pixels per inch. The total image size from top to bottom was originally 1955 pixels, so I resized it to 3385 pixels, and it works great at the 50 pixel scale in MapTool.

You can download my resized version here for testing if you like.

Edit: Whoops. I just realized that the image is not square! I resized it correctly top to bottom, but it's not right left to right. Give me a minute.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 21, 2011)

I'm not quite sure what happened, but in the end I think things worked out.

The original image was 1355 pixels wide by 1955 pixels tall. I had to resize it to 2349 by 3385. I must have messed something up with the first resizing, but it seems okay now.

It was originally at a scale of 28.84 pixels per square (well, I get 28.84 PPS wide by 28.88 PPS tall). The rescaled version (available here) is resized to 50 PPS. But it took me a few tries.


----------



## Colmarr (Jul 21, 2011)

But why the difference between 28-odd and the 37 Morrus suggested? I assume there's some compression in the image in the PDF?

Can you try the hedge maze map that Morrus posted in the preview thread and see if you get 37? I get 34.7


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 21, 2011)

I'm at work now, so it will have to wait until this evening. Sorry!


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 21, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> But why the difference between 28-odd and the 37 Morrus suggested? I assume there's some compression in the image in the PDF?
> 
> Can you try the hedge maze map that Morrus posted in the preview thread and see if you get 37? I get 34.7




Yep, I got 34.7 on the hedge maze map from the preview, too.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 21, 2011)

For comparison's sake, I tried the Coaltongue map from Page 14 (the 17th page of the PDF). It appears to be 21.97 pixels per square. I have no idea where the 31 is coming from; perhaps the Pathfinder version is totally different?


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jul 22, 2011)

I'm going to download MapTool and do some testing with the original JPGs and let you all know what I find out. (I'm pretty sure the numbers in the OP are derived from those, and not the resized/resampled copies in the PDF.)

Is MapTool the only program I should be looking at, or is there another that I need to test?

In order to properly conduct my testing, I also need to know how you all are measuring the squares. See the attached graphic. Assume the black squares are the pixels in the dead center of the gridlines, and the grey squares are the antialiased borders of those lines. Are we using the red, green, blue, or purple count?


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 22, 2011)

Edit: Original post was wrong.

I'm using the blue. My process is described here.

Also, what original JPGs are you referring to? The preview images from this post?


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jul 22, 2011)

I'm going to use the images Ryan sent me during layout, since those are the ones I'd be passing along in a theoretical ZIP file to accompany each future adventure.

Now it's possible I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I envision a shorter workflow than the one in your blog there. In particular, I want anyone using Paint.NET or the GIMP to be able to just open a map JPG, use the measurement we provide, scale the JPG, and save and close it, and only then get started with MapTool.


----------



## Colmarr (Jul 22, 2011)

That would be grand.

Ultimately, maptool is only the endpoint. All the work involved is to get the image to 50 pixels per square. Once you've done that, you just import the image into maptool and move the grid around until it sits neatly on the image's map lines.

PS. I'm using the blue measurements too.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 22, 2011)

Yes, exactly. If you do the work for us by either already doing the math (maps are currently at 28.24 pixels per square) or resizing them to 50 pixels per square, great! The workflow I use is only because, well, I don't know of a better way. 

Measuring a single square is not accurate enough, just to be clear. If you have an image that starts off at 2200 pixels wide and you say it's 31 pixels per square, then the final map could be anywhere between 3498 and 3601 pixels wide. It makes a big difference. If the rescaled map is "close, but not quite there" then the tokens in MapTool will line up with the map wherever you match the image to the grid (say, in the middle) but will get progressively farther and farther off as you move away from the matched area.

Edit: Also, I realize that I may have confused you based on my workflow on the blog; sorry about that. That workflow is specifically for rescaling a map image I CREATED in MapTool. The only thing I'm using MapTool for there is for counting squares (because that's a drag to do manually).

For an image like the ZEITGEIST maps, I only use Paint.NET. Open the map, zoom way in, count the number of pixels from the first square to the last square, count the number of squares, do the math, rescale, done. At that point, I can import the map to MapTool and use it.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jul 23, 2011)

So far I am finding that taking measurements is much easier in the GIMP (GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program) than it is in Paint.NET. I add a layer, count off about 30 squares so I have a good "sample size" (I use the paintbrush on the new layer to "dot" the squares I've counted -- a new layer so I don't accidentally mark the map itself), loop the squares with the rectangular selection tool, then zoom in to finesse the selection.

I haven't discovered a way to do this in Paint.NET. It's possible in the GIMP (and Photoshop of course) because you have the ability to directly adjust the selection rectangle after you've drawn it (by simply grabbing a corner or side and dragging), which makes the "loop-zoom-adjust" technique feasible in the first place. Of course the GIMP is a Java application, and Paint.NET is a native Windows application, etc. etc.

I certainly think the "blue measure" is the way to go. And my measurements of the "original" Coaltongue map (not extracted from the PDF) match the 28.8ish measures, so I think I'm doing it right.  (I also got the "squares weren't square" result.)

Finally, I've had a look at my rescaled version in MapTool (I also needed more than one attempt) and it seems to be OK -- one or two pixels off at the extreme end (which I finally solved with a quick "touch-up" resizing in the GIMP). So when I get some time, I'll use this procedure to re-measure the maps from the "preview" thread and post my  results (remembering to double-check for non-square squares in the unlikely event that happened to another map). But if you don't want to wait for me, I can recommend using the GIMP to take the measurements (and doing the rescaling).


----------



## OnlineDM (Jul 23, 2011)

Thanks! I haven't used GIMP before, but I think Paint.NET is just as easy (I learned my method from Eugene, the person who put together the Fantasy Grounds files for WotBS - his video of how to do it is here).

By the way, I resized all of the maps from the original preview post already. If anyone wants them, the links are below.

Hedge Maze
Hedge Maze Tower
King's Arrival
Sea Cave
The Docks


----------

