User talk:Dr ishmael/Archive 7

Low Rez Armor...
I've been eyeballing some of the low resolution armor screenshots (I'm giving special attention to the Mesmer Obsidian armor/Female at the moment, but Warrior Tyrian armor/Female and Paragon Elonian armor/Male are more examples), which are so low resolution that much of the detail present on the armor is severly degraded or missing (eg, the chain-link pattern on the warrior armor and the patterns present on the paragon dye areas, although the chunks of obsidian on the mesmer armor are almost completely missing). Do you think there would be strong objection if I were to replace some images of this nature with something that includes a little more of the detail? Yamagawa 05:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. Bigger and better armor images are always appreciated.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So noted. I will consider these fair game for updates.  If I replace a perfectly good set of images with a higher resolution set without stating what detail I intended to reveal/improve, I will consider it fair game for reversion.  Yamagawa 19:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually just comparing the new image to the previous should make it quite obvious, so don't worry about it too much. A lot of these need a larger size (around 200x500px or so, instead of 120x300), and better jpg compression (i.e. NOT MSPaint), as well as higher Anti-aliasing.  All of these points have been discussed many times before, and I think you are familiar with them.  If you think you're improving it, do it.  If something is "wrong" with your new version, we will comment on it and let you know how it can be improved.  If you are not sure, you can do one gallery as a start and ask for input.  If people like it, you can do more the same way.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 21:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to state the improvement anyway. Otherwise, someone else might think that 'Bigger has got to be better' and use it as an excuse to start replacing decent pictures with crappy (but high rez) pictures of their own.  Rather than let that start happening, I'd like to leave a clear precedent of not replacing things *just* for the higher resolution.  (If resolution is an issue, then please add it to Style_and_formatting/Armor/Art_gallery as a suggested minimum standard.)  If in your judgment some armor needs new screenshots then tag it for replacement, and if I run across such a tag, I'll gladly replace the images (If I have access to the armor and time).  Absent such tags, then I fully intend to state the reason for the replacement, and absent such reasons I'm counting on you to make at least some noise to me about 'replaced for no cause'.  I don't expect you to need to make such noise to me.  I just want the precedent in place, giving you something to point to if someone starts loading poor quality images and then points to me saying they are improving the resolution same as I do.  Yamagawa 22:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point about the S&F. I think there should be a "suggested" image size at the very least.  And improving the resolution is not acceptable if the new image violates the current S&F requirements as opposed to the previous version, so a revert would absolutely be warranted in that case.  I think 200x500px is a reasonable ballpark size, which will vary with different characters proportions (a Female Sin vs a Male Monk, for example).  Basically, the part where it says "Click the images to see a zoomed in version" or something along that, it should hold true, and the images should be at least about 25%-30% larger than standard gallery size to reveal details.  If you replace an image simply for resolution, a comment like "higher quality" would suffice and imply that the new version is compliant with the standards, but not give implicit reasoning for someone to put up their crappy high-resolution shots, since "quality" refers to not just resolution, but the overall standard compliance.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)