 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
There are some very dark areas, yeah. The rest may be my laptop screen, I'll post some with gamma way up then.
when I put gamma way up, it looks all blocky as is normal in software. It looks brighter in GLquake, but I can't run that at enough fps to normally move around the map. And I don't have GIMP installed right now. Plus, the map IS very dark, the last two shots represent that rather well. There are indeed areas where you can barely see the half dozen fiends that rape you :-) not all at the same time though. That is intentional. It is intentionally "unfair" towards the player. In some areas at least.
Trinca, do you find it too dark when you actually play the map? You do have the option to retreat towards the light, it's your own choice if you fight in the dark... you don't have to. There are light sources nearby, and the corridors are well-lit. I'd prefer to work on the map now instead of screwing around with brightness on pictures :-) later. Nice architecture, nice lightning effects, while a little bit dark, but seems OK. Instead of playing with gamma, you should try to increase brightness by 40% and contrast by 30%, it would look better ;)
Keep it up ! Heh, thanks. Those do seem a bit dark by daylight, it was night when I posted them and I have an old LCD...
I'm installing Gimp then. Goldenboy - Honestly, I like dark maps too, I like the idea of it being like a Sci-Fi horror world. Good Metal style, Im sure the map will feel very ID-Quakey.
I thought #4383 was a funny post, cause it seems you were frustrated that people didnt "get" your shots. I got whinged at for posting dark screenies of the hand, so I did adjustments on the last preview-shots of my current map. I dont know what people thought of it really, but I remember Ijed telling me to 'sort out the shadows around the rocks". You cant win, can you? :D just entering
gamma in the console before taking shots. Dunno if it would work for you I think I wasn't quite ready for playtesters (top players) finding this both too hard (to the point of LOL) and too dark and being blunt about it, too.
The map will be better for it, though. I'm rather thankful I get the flak now instead of later. As for my last post, no, I pretty much meant what I said. I can't be arsed to spend hours doodling around polishing up screenshots. I prefer giving the map to people. I'll just beg them for some screenies when it's released. I'm not whining or anything, I'd really rather just get my hands dirty than mess with pictures. Seeya. As a note, I'll just say that gamma correcting screen shots will take less time than uploading them to a server. :)
I have an alias in my
which engine are you talking about? Most engines do not apply gamma correction to their screenshots.
If you can't be arsed making your screenshots viewable, why bother posting them at all? After all, your doing it for people to view and comment on them which is quite hard if they are too dark. People shouldn't be expected to do this part of your work themselves. Increasing brightness and contrast by some standard values (the same for each shot) doesn't take hours but only a couple of seconds, and since you have to open them in an editor to save them as JPG, doing this little extra step can't be regarded as much of a hassle.
It should be quite clear by now that dark screenshots don't automatically mean the map is (too)dark too. Lighting always looks better ingame.
In a way I like your attitude, but in a another, I think many wont.
If you fix up your shots by increasing brightness and contrast then people wont look at them and think "huh, that level looks too dark to play, so im not gonna bother with it". Unless you make your levels for yourself and only yourself in which-case why bother posting on func at all? See ya! Ricky: what? ??? I say "seeya" and you flip?
Willem, neg!ke: this is a misunderstanding, I don't have an image editor installed and got a weird bug when trying to, which atm IS more hassle than I'm willing to bear since I'd rather use my limited time for mapping, please understand that I meant that literally, not in an arrogant way that some ppl were quick to assume. I used nview to convert them to jpg, and it took half an hour plus googling and two tries to figure that out because it's badly documented. I tried adjusting brightness with that, which produced a weird grid like effect and that was when I said "OK I'll stop this for now." Gosh. You live, you learn. If you take a look at efdat's screenshot in our ZerTM topic, it looks pretty blurry and blendy. It's my fault, but I assure you when I put his pic through the motions in Gimp, doubled the size, added contrast, light, rebalanced the colors and passed it through an Unsharp filter, the results were pretty damn good.
However, in browser, not as much so. I think Gimp resampled the original with the treated version when I saved it to a compressed format. out of curiosity, now I'm certain it blended the two because I had the original untreated except for doubling of the size in an alpha channel.
A mistake on my part, my apologies, efdat. gb: OK, i see. Apparently, you picked one of the most awkward tools available then...
HeadThump: Uh, it's not a science. And you're not supposed to create a Picasso either. Doubling the size?! Rebalancing the colors, unsharpening? WTF? sent a screenshot that was a wee on the small side. I processed it (really, those are only a few steps) to give a better idea of his map, only to fuck that up by shuffling the original into a separate channel.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |