Enhanced Game of Thrones books

[haydnfan]

I agree, maps are usually terrible in ebooks, too low res. That is a problem with fantasy novels which commonly start with a map so that you are aware of the geography. Especially important since many fantasy novels are travelogues.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by haydnfan

I agree, maps are usually terrible in ebooks, too low res. That is a problem with fantasy novels which commonly start with a map so that you are aware of the geography. Especially important since many fantasy novels are travelogues.

If the map is too low a resolution, I will see if I can find a higher resolution map online. If I can, I'll replace the low resolution map. It even made a difference when I was using my T1 (800x600).

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Sorry, but that's wrong. Take the average map in a fantasy book. Make it 800x600. Now put that map on a 6" 300DPI Reader. It could very easily be hard to read and if you increase the size to make it full screen, it could easily be blurry. Take an map that's larger than 800x600 and put it on a Reader that's 800x600 (full screen) and you should be able to read it.

...

The same image at the same size (full screen, 6") should look the same. I'm guessing MikeB was expressing this by making the screen resolutions an integer multiple, and JSWolf is clouding the issue by muddying things up. It may even look better on the higher resolution display (due to more pixels for things like anti aliasing, greater pixel depth, ...).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by John F

The same image at the same size (full screen, 6") should look the same. I'm guessing MikeB was expressing this by making the screen resolutions an integer multiple, and JSWolf is clouding the issue by muddying things up. It may even look better on the higher resolution display (due to more pixels for things like anti aliasing, greater pixel depth, ...).

Have you ever seen a low resolution map scaled to full screen on a hi-resolution eInk display? It looks fuzzy and sometimes can be unreadable.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Have you ever seen a low resolution map scaled to full screen on a hi-resolution eInk display? It looks fuzzy and sometimes can be unreadable.

Have you ever seen a low resolution map scaled to full screen on a low-resolution eInk display? It looks fuzzy and sometimes can be unreadable.

If the high resolution display looks worse than the low resolution display, there is a poor scaler implementation.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Have you ever seen a low resolution map scaled to full screen on a hi-resolution eInk display? It looks fuzzy and sometimes can be unreadable.

We aren't talking about a scaled up low-res map though, we are talking about a reasonable (in todays terms) resolution map. It will look not look any worse in future than it does now on a 6" screen regardless of how high the resolution of the screen becomes.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

We aren't talking about a scaled up low-res map though, we are talking about a reasonable (in todays terms) resolution map. It will look not look any worse in future than it does now on a 6" screen regardless of how high the resolution of the screen becomes.

Sorry, but that doesn't work when talking about eInk. LCD, maybe, eInk, no.

Take a 6" 300DPI screen at 1430 x 1080. A map at 800x600 is not going to look all that good and could look blurry when enlarged to full screen. If not full screen, it could look too small. Either way, it could be hard to red.

eInk does not work the same as LCD. While an 800x600 resolution image might look fine on a 1440p screen, it won't work on a 300DPI 6" eInk screen.

[John F]

I just downloaded the sample of "A Game of Thrones: The Illustrated Edition: ..."

The resolution of the first map is 967x1290. It looks fine in full screen (on my 300dpi Glo HD).

Using this sample size of 1, the more likely problem isn't the resolution, but the compression artifacts.

[pwalker8]

I went and tried the first one as well. It's an interesting experiment and very much reminds me of the enhanced Harry Potter books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

I just downloaded the sample of "A Game of Thrones: The Illustrated Edition: ..."

The resolution of the first map is 967x1290. It looks fine in full screen (on my 300dpi Glo HD).

Using this sample size of 1, the more likely problem isn't the resolution, but the compression artifacts.

A map is generally best compressed as a GIF file. This is a lossless format, and should therefore show no compression artefacts.

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A map is generally best compressed as a GIF file. This is a lossless format, and should therefore show no compression artefacts.

Sorry but GIF is not lossless.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PeterT

Sorry but GIF is not lossless.

It is if the source file contains fewer than 256 colours. Maps in fantasy novels tend to be either monochrome, or else black and white with a very limited palette of additional colours, and hence will compress losslessly in GIF format. Line drawings (which maps typically are) are the ideal candidate for GIF compression.

[JSWolf]

Maps compress well in jpg. The problem is the low resolution.

[AnemicOak]

Maps would be best presented in a vector format if at all possible. Then they should scale to whatever size is needed from a small phone screen to a 80" TV+.

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is if the source file contains fewer than 256 colours. Maps in fantasy novels tend to be either monochrome, or else black and white with a very limited palette of additional colours, and hence will compress losslessly in GIF format. Line drawings (which maps typically are) are the ideal candidate for GIF compression.

The map was a color map, and it probably had more than 256 colors (there were color gradients).