Briefing pic woe

[misinformed 0]

Ok my pic is 128x128 and it shows up in the briefing all fine and dandy, apart from it appearing with a seemingly dark overlay on it.

Ive tried paa, gif, and jpg file formats although it makes no difference. Also i must be doing something wrong because transparency doesn't seem to be working either. Although i think transparency wont work with paa anyway? The solutions something to do with the alpha channels?

Had a look at a few other pics in briefings which don't suffer from this and still cant discern whats going on. Must be something im not doing in photoshop.

[misinformed 0]

I tried using a BI mission pic from Convoy attack in a mission to try and scrape together an explanation and it has the darkened effect in the briefing on it as well. Ie a lot darker than it looks on the overview of M09 in single player missions overviews. So perhaps the majority of people viewing the image will have it display properly, since it seems to be something specific to my setup.

I dunno.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I experience the same issue, picture darkening.

I used Jpg files that were cropped to fit size req.

[-SPA-LynxEye 0]

I think ArmA is adding always certain 'overlay' over images, alpha-channeled or not.

So, till this issue is corrected...

Edit the image, and add it some sharp. (bright? light?).

So as ArmA will dark it...

Please, can you show me the instance where you declaring the background and image alpha channels?

Just something like this:

class RscPicture

{

type = CT_STATIC;

idc = -1;

style = ST_PICTURE;

colorBackground[] = {0, 0, 0, 0};

colorText[] = {1, 1, 1, 1};

font = Bitstream;

size = 0.2;

};

class RscText

{

type = CT_STATIC;

idc = -1;

style = ST_LEFT;

h = 0.04;

colorBackground[] = {0, 0, 0, 0};

colorText[] = {1, 1, 1, 1};

font = Bitstream;

size = 0.2;

};

class RscBackground

{

type = CT_STATIC;

idc = -1;

style = ST_LEFT;

colorBackground[] = {0, 1, 0, 1};

colorText[] = {1, 1, 1, 1};

font = Bitstream;

size = 0.2;

text = "";

};

I was meaning that 'bolded' lines, if you are using RSC method in some way.

Maybe we need to change the values in colorBackground and colorText lines as well as in all 'resources' like

Quote[/b] ]class VehReheal01

{

name = "VehReheal01";

duration = 0.2

idd = -1;

movingEnable = false;

controls[]= {Reheal01,RehealText};

  class Reheal01 : RscPicture

  {

         idc = -1;

x = 0.47;

y = 0.53;

w = 0.06;

h = 0.08;

text = "LynxScripts\FunZone\Images\vehicle_rehealing.paa";

colorBackground[] = {0,0, 0,0};

colorText[] = {1,1,1,1};

size = 1;

sizeEx = 1;

};

class RehealText : RscText

{

style = ST_SHADOW; lineSpacing = 1.0;

text = "REHEALING";

x = 0.44;

y = 0.4;

w = 0.2;

h = 0.2;

colorBackground[] = {0,0, 0,0};

colorText[] = {1,1,1,1};

font = Bitstream; sizeEx = 0.028;

};

};

So... i suspect that 'we' are adding that dark overlay (just another background with 40%/50%/60 alpha channel, enough to darken all images we putting in ArmA).

Those scripts... not the 'target' of my post... just the alpha channel inside backgrounds and mainImages concept.

[-SPA-LynxEye 0]

sry... sry...

Maybe that words... having the light itself...

Quote[/b] ]I used Jpg files that were cropped to fit size req.

Hum... hum... hum... hum...

First. Try to put the final size inside ArmA, don't let ArmA spending more time 'cropping' your images.

Second. Try to put 72dpi images with 8bit per channel.

Third. Try to use 'different qualities' of Jpeg compression. (progressive, basic, medium... it depends on the program you using to save/handle you images).

Just a tip: If you are using .paa files (with or without added alpha channel) or just .jpeg files... if you declaring those images inside description.ext or where you doing it... check...

NO MORE alpha-channel BACKGROUND added.

I think that we are not seeing a darken 2D image.

I think we are seeing your original 2D-notAlphaChannel-Image as the image... over/below a background with some alpha channel % added.

It seems, like we are seeing the image through a sunglasses... that 'sunglasses' is the added background. Just like the backgrounds declared in the scripts i was showing you. If alpha channel is not a perfect transparent layer... is because is being mixed with black. So... black color being mixed with % of alpha channel... its creating a 'sunglasses' effect.

Alpha channel means % of opacity. I hope not wrong.

Sry, if a good English-spoken could explain this with better words...

I'll try to explain what the h* is the alpha channel.

In this line:

colorBackground[] = {0,0, 0,0};

We are adding a 'background' layer to our RSC texts,images etc.

If i put his:

colorBackground[] = {0,0, 0,1};

I'm saying... background in pure white (0,0,0) + alpha channel to 100% (1 in ArmA scripts when handling colors... means 100% quantity of that channel/color).

What is alpha channel to 100%? 0% transparent.

So... the 4th place in colors in ArmA commands... is the alpha channel:

0 - means 100% transparency... 0% solid.

0.5 - means 50% transparency... 50% solid... you now will see the 'sunglasses' effect (your 'darken' image maybe).

1 - means 0% transparency... 100% solid.

Then, try to find that 'color' commands where (maybe) your image is being added to an extra % of alpha channel.

So, ArmA is not darken your image... is you... but still i think that you not noticed where in your scripts (or your briefing.html) is that extra 'solid' %.

Can give us an easy example of your briefing (not your final one, just one sample) with an image inside?

Try to make a link with your sample.html.

Thx a lot.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Here is the briefing used for the above image

Briefing.html

Or, if you wish, the line in the briefing where the picture is declared is :

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"><p align="center"><img src="switch2.JPG" width="512" height="256"></p>

[crashdome 3]

Quote[/b] ]I'm saying... background in pure white (0,0,0) ...

Wouldn't that be pure black?

[-SPA-LynxEye 0]

It was an example, you can put the color what you want, and with the 'amount' of transparency you want.

Roger, sry, 0 in colours means always 'empty color', so, dark'ing the color. Yep. It was black.

@Ziggi

Not, was not cropped in your briefing... only it was 'fitted', reducing the size, not the pixels. You have both images the same, but like one, being the big brother... and the one in briefing, the little bro'.

Well that issue is showing that...

- Putting .jpg images in briefing, being greater than 96dpi...

 will be ArmA-converted to 72dpi to be shown...

- Maybe still you have the 'darken' issue.

  Play with alpha channels.

And sry all about my mistakes.

I'm thinking that your original .jpg file... was not 512 x 256.

It was another size... and in 72 dpi... so... when trying to resize to 512 x 256... the image editor program you used... will change 'that' 72 dpi to 96 dpi.

Well, how programs handling 'dpi' ?

As example, Photoshop can show the image in both ways:

1. As 96 dpi.

OR

2. As 512 x 256 pixels

 Huh?

1a. Image being shown as 'dpi' based when (try with mini-images) the pixels of your screen, is showing (pixel-by-pixel) the image. As example, if you have a image with 96dpi... means... 96 pixels per inch (2,5408cm if i'm not wrong). Then, in this case, your screen (under your editor image program), you will see, 96 pixels each 2,5408cm (horizontal) of your screen... (zoom at 100%, or 'original size' ). I called it: 'dpi based'.

Is not perfect squared 2,5408cm because pixels has not perfect squared. As another lie in specs sheets of monitors/TV's is 'dot pitch'. Just an example.

0,24... lol that 0,24 (millimeters) is showing the shorter side of the pixel... As pixels are not being a perfect square... you can't say dot pitch = only one value.

Why is a lie?... because brands saying you , only the shorter size... then you will be comparing that parameter with other model of another brand... from a mistake. The mistake where brands earning more money, thx to technical lies.

Now the 2nd.

2a. 512 x 256 pixels (resolution based).

Now we have the same image... but will be shown in your editor image program, pixel by pixel, occuping in our screen, pixel by pixel. So, real image pixel = real screen pixel in this case. Use zoom 100%.

The 'dpi' based method is to see 25% zoomed images as example... and 'interpolating' it... to keep a certain 'good' quality while you seeing it on screen.

Ziggi, now you can understand why ArmA is "fitting" your image when in Internet Explorer is being shown bigger?

Just because Internet Explorer and ArmA, showing in 'different method' the pixels.

I hope you can now to see the image without darken 'sunglasses'.

Change the line of your briefing.html to this.

<p align="center"><img src="switch2.JPG" width="384" height="192"></p>

512 = 2^9

256 = 2^8

384 = 2^8 + 2^7

192 = 2^7 + 2^6

If you have "Correct math", you have "correct image 'scaled'" from X dpi to Y dpi.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

the original pic was 800x600 and was copy and pasted into Paint, then save as into a .JPG

Using Microsoft Office Picture Manager I cropped the picture to 512x256 and saved.

As for your picture and instructions, you can cease hosting the file as I DLed it and follow your instructions.

However, an error occurs and a blank space where the picture should be.

not 2^n ?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"><p align="center"><img src="switch2.JPG" width="384" height="192"></p>

can you do the dpi conversion and maintain the 512x256 size maybe? I think ArmA is picky on the size of file she can take.

[-SPA-LynxEye 0]

Roger, sry  

It was not 'correct math'   LOL sry

I made a screenshot... pasting inside Paint... and Paint telling me... 96 dpi.

Maybe with your Mikrosoft editor program, you can change 96 dpi to 72 dpi. I think it must be easy.

Just try to search that info where the resolution of the image can be changed with your own values.

Maybe saying not dpi.

Pixels per Inch

Dots per Inch

Points per Inch

etc etc

96dpi = 37,795 pixs per centimeter.

72dpi = 28,346 pixs per centimeter.

Maybe your program is handling cm's... not inches.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

hehehe WHAT? it darkened again!

WTH!

the Microsoft Office Picture Manager will let me adjust:

predefined width x height

custom widtch x height

percentage of original width x height

all using resolution pixels

or I can crop images X & Y

Im just an amatuer screenshot taker, enough to get the job done

[-SPA-LynxEye 0]

I think it's impossible to declare a .paa file inside a HTML file but...

http://www.gratisweb.com/lynxeye....dpi.paa

for briefing.html where name of image is:

"switch2-72dpi.paa"

try it.

Check again if the line in briefing.html is declaring the new name (switch2-72dpi.jpg).

Also I'll try to make my tests.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Blank pic, no error

Do I include the resolution in the briefing.html ?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> width="512" height="256"

linking the file correctly, I'd say

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Derek/My%20Documents/ArmA%20Other%20Profiles/%7BUSI%7D_DirTyDeeDs/MPMissions/switch.Sara/switch2-72dpi.paa

[misinformed 0]

Quote[/b] ]So, ArmA is not darken your image... is you... but still i think that you not noticed where in your scripts (or your briefing.html) is that extra 'solid' %.

I dont think its anything we are or are not doing with the images since i used an image that was shipped with arma and that worked in game. Put it up on one of my briefings and had a look at it. It had the same darkened effect.

So unless you do have to specify all kinds of of image criteria in the description.ext (was plug n play in opf) that im not aware of i fail to see whats going wrong.

[-SPA-LynxEye 0]

briefing.html

Quote[/b] ]Pictures: Pictures are nice. And you can easily add them to your briefings, simply by using this tag:

<p align="center"><img src="PictureName.jpg" width="128" height="64"></p>

Let's talk about this tag a bit. “PictureName.jpg†is the name of your picture. It has to be in the correct mission folder. Its maximum resolution is 256x256 pixels, and both width and height have to be a power of two (i.e. both sides have to be 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 or 256 pixels). “Width†and “Height†are the new width and height of the picture; that is, how it will be seen on the screen (you can shrink the picture to make it sharper by using different height and width values to those that the picture actually have). “Align†determines if the picture is centered or not. You can set it as “leftâ€, “right†or “centerâ€.

Note: Using the .JPG format is not possible in the first (1.00) European version of the game. And in versions 1.10 and 1.20, the JPG cannot be saved as “Progressiveâ€.

LOL      

[misinformed 0]

briefing.html

Quote[/b] ]Pictures: Pictures are nice. And you can easily add them to your briefings, simply by using this tag:

<p align="center"><img src="PictureName.jpg" width="128" height="64"></p>

Let's talk about this tag a bit. “PictureName.jpg†is the name of your picture. It has to be in the correct mission folder. Its maximum resolution is 256x256 pixels, and both width and height have to be a power of two (i.e. both sides have to be 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 or 256 pixels). “Width†and “Height†are the new width and height of the picture; that is, how it will be seen on the screen (you can shrink the picture to make it sharper by using different height and width values to those that the picture actually have). “Align†determines if the picture is centered or not. You can set it as “leftâ€, “right†or “centerâ€.

Note: Using the .JPG format is not possible in the first (1.00) European version of the game. And in versions 1.10 and 1.20, the JPG cannot be saved as “Progressiveâ€.

LOL

Would we be commenting on a dark overlay on images in the in game briefing if we couldn't even get them working in Armed Assault in the first place?

He obv had the dimensions correct to display his first image.

What point could you possibly be making that deserves that many stupid smiley's?

[-SPA-LynxEye 0]

That red head was me... as i not remembered the link saying briefing.html

Yeah i know, i write stupid things.

And not, still not getting an image without that 'sunglasses' layer over it. In briefing.