kitty's elvish portraits

[Mist]

Yes, and it'll be eventualy done. I need to sort out few technical obstacles before I manage that. At best it'll be done next week, at worst somewhere over the next month or so.

[Mist]

Kitty, the attachments are back. Can you check if anything's still missing?

[kitty]

yep - everything has magically re-appeared! thank you!!!

[Iris]

I had to mangle two portraits and commit them.

The problem was that Marksman (male) portrait was 206x206 instead of the canonical 205x205, while the female variation was in the canonical size; Scout's portrait was non-square (204x205). Since both portraits had some spare space (black background), I mangled it instead of scaling down the picture, therefore not losing any detail of the last state of the portraits.

It was commited both to trunk and 1.4; therefore, releases 1.5.? and 1.4.1 are aware of this fix.

[Jetrel]

I had to mangle two portraits and commit them.

The problem was that Marksman (male) portrait was 206x206 instead of the canonical 205x205, while the female variation was in the canonical size; Scout's portrait was non-square (204x205). Since both portraits had some spare space (black background), I mangled it instead of scaling down the picture, therefore not losing any detail of the last state of the portraits.

It was commited both to trunk and 1.4; therefore, releases 1.5.? and 1.4.1 are aware of this fix.

Mangle? That sounds violent - I trust you mean that you recropped them (adding/removing rows/columns of pixels without modifying any of the existing ones).

[Iris]

I had to mangle two portraits and commit them.

The problem was that Marksman (male) portrait was 206x206 instead of the canonical 205x205, while the female variation was in the canonical size; Scout's portrait was non-square (204x205). Since both portraits had some spare space (black background), I mangled it instead of scaling down the picture, therefore not losing any detail of the last state of the portraits.

It was commited both to trunk and 1.4; therefore, releases 1.5.? and 1.4.1 are aware of this fix.

Mangle? That sounds violent - I trust you mean that you recropped them (adding/removing rows/columns of pixels without modifying any of the existing ones).

I am violent. But this is the new state of them:

elvish-scout.png (49.93 KiB) Viewed 10635 times

elvish-marksman.png (45.57 KiB) Viewed 10640 times

The difference isn't noticeable unless you open the 1.4.0 shipped versions together with these and compare the size reported by your favorite editor.

edit: I did my edit with GIMP if it matters for anything, and kept the unused alpha layer of the originals, which wesnoth-optipng should learn to remove when a image is 100% opaque.

[torangan]

edit: I did my edit with GIMP if it matters for anything, and kept the unused alpha layer of the originals, which wesnoth-optipng should learn to remove when a image is 100% opaque.

This script is explicitely told not to make any changes which could be detected by an artist. If you only want to keep the screen rendering identical it could also do color space reductions and other stuff. But this will make furhter work with the images harder and thus get you into very hot water if you tried it.

[Iris]

This script is explicitely told not to make any changes which could be detected by an artist. If you only want to keep the screen rendering identical it could also do color space reductions and other stuff. But this will make furhter work with the images harder and thus get you into very hot water if you tried it.

Yeah, I know, that's why I didn't implement any of those stuff when I rewrote wesnoth-optipng some days ago (the former script was wesnoth-pngcrush).

[kitty]

thank you for the fixes, shadow master! i promise to be more careful with those details in future

but i have no idea at all what the rest of you tech babble means

[torangan]

but i have no idea at all what the rest of you tech babble means

It's about compressing the images. PNG allows different approaches and the script mentioned tries to find the best one (which takes more time then your average image editor will spend on it).
The stuff we don't do is about transformations which change the image but in a way which doesn't affect its rendering on the screen. Like converting it to use less bit per pixel if you don't use many colors anyway or stripping an unused alpha channel.

[Iris]

Those who read/wrote in this thread before the big crash would know that Kitty revised both the female Archer and Fighter portraits.

Those should also know that I had posted this:

It seems I have turned into an automaton. Okay, I noticed a small issue with his left wrist (at our right). It looks... too... straight. I lack the vocabulary for explaining this.

/me goes to read a dictionary while uploading the pic.

elvish-fighter-wrist.png (40.3 KiB) Viewed 8642 times

[Jetrel]

Here's hoping she's still around, after the crash.

Those who read/wrote in this thread before the big crash would know that Kitty revised both the female Archer and Fighter portraits.

Those should also know that I had posted this:

It seems I have turned into an automaton. Okay, I noticed a small issue with his left wrist (at our right). It looks... too... straight. I lack the vocabulary for explaining this.

/me goes to read a dictionary while uploading the pic.

elvish-fighter-wrist.png

Yeah, the wrist doesn't connect with the hand. Shouldn't hurt the rest of the picture to fix, though.

[kitty]

back again - i'll look into the fighter's arm (don't know how i could miss that ).
here is just the new female archer who disappeared during the crash.

[kitty]

quick fix on the fighter's arm:

[Iris]

I don't know how to put it.

I expect a little more curvature on his wrist, something like what this pic should depict. Again, I am not an Artist and I know nothing of human proportions.