Collectible Card Game Headquarters

i can't think of an immediate reason why we would NEED to have them larger than the MtG scans, but i don't think it would hurt to have them since it is for archival purposes. i do plan on using them for MWS, but if they're released at 300dpi, it's not that hard to downsize to MWS-friendly resolutions.

the cards with a 0 in the set number are promo cards... release events, etc. i, sadly, have very few of those. i will have access to numbers 30-47, though, as they were another special collection entitled "Countdown to the King." these were released in the weeks leading up to the Return of the King movie, with a new card available each week.

oh; special attention will have to be given to 0P36 and 0P42. they were specially printed so their extreme edges would actually fit together to form a bleeding effect.



hopefully my copies of these cards don't have imperfections around those edges... if they do, i'll spend some time in Photoshop to try and restore them like i did with the Witch-king scan i sent you earlier.

extreme wrote:And how do we release them ?

If you want, just like the MTG HQ's. I can make a new topic and put them on MF and RS.

Are new sets still being made for this game?

Huggybaby wrote:Are new sets still being made for this game?

no. Decipher finally screwed the game up so bad people stopped buying it.

there are small disjointed groups of people, though, that still enjoy making custom cards that would fit better back into the time when the game didn't suck (obviously irrelevant to this project, but i still think it's cool ^^)

good thing you mentioned this, in this case we have to do them full bordered.
Allright, i vote for 300dpi, I like'em big.

Huggy, let's make a new section somehow, so it can be visibly another thing than mtg. Any ideas ?

How about an "HQ Pics Downloads (Non-MTG)" topic?

yes, but the thing is we should also have a place to discuss non-mtg. I was thinking maybe about a separate section ?

couple of things with the current naming convention:

it would be best to leave the dot off the file name, imho. that dot screws up all sorts of alphabetizing programs, plus it makes using it in MWS insanely difficult.

on a similar note, what are your thoughts on using the accent marks in the file names? for instance, instead of naming it "Rumil, Elven Protector.jpg" we call it "Rúmil, Elven Protector.jpg"? the reason i ask is that the current MWS base for this game uses the accents (plus, they look wicked cool). i know this warrants my crucifixion on account of the Nazgûl (since they're named insane things like Úlairë Toldëa), so i leave it up to you. if you don't want to go through all that trouble, i'll just rename the ones that need it when i download the pics.

ok for the dot out. Regarding accents, well, it's more or less the same problem as the dot - nonstandard characters, when you search for a name you have to spell it with accents and such... plus it's a pita to write the names.
I'm against it, but let's hear some more opinions.

that's true. didn't realize the accents screwed up the searches in windows (they don't in MWS), but yep they do. go ahead and leave them off then. i'll just change them to my liking when i download them. no worries ^^

As for the seperate section, I would suggest making two sections, "Live Non-MTG Games" and "Dead Non-MTG Games". With the Dead section, you can have the Decipher Star Wars and LotR games, with Live, things like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon

here's another batch of scans... also included a new scan of the card back, sans hair

http://www.mediafire.com/?1n4nytyqrmj

color matching:
match brown sites to "Weatherhills"
grey sites to "Rivendell Terrace"
Shire cards to "Bounder"
Sauron cards to "Thin and Stretched"
Ringwraith cards to "Drawn to Its Power"
Moria cards to "Through the Misty Mountains"
Isengard cards to "Uruk Brood"
Gondor cards to "Valiant Man of the West"
Gandalf cards to "Servant of the Secret Fire"
and Isildur's Bane should be very nearly black in the top-right corner

can you reupload 01_06 ? The crc is corrupt for this one, i can't extract it from the archive. The others are fine (7-15)

Allright, I cut and renamed the rest. Several things:
-you said Haldir was overexposed and provided a corrected image which was even more overexposed. Overexposed means "too bright". Did you mean that and something happened with your image ? because on the contrary, I find the cards a little bit dark.
-you are of course aware that if we don't have perfectly calibrated monitor and scanner all discussions about color and brightness fidelity are useless. What I see on the monitor and what you see can be different things.
-just as in Magic, there are a lot of variations in color in the prints. It is impossible to match them, even if I had the time, it's an exercise in futility and I will only do it for cards that shift a lot from the average (there were about 4 in the dwarven culture and a few others for the rest).
-blacks should not be complete blacks. The borders are not black, they are just very dark grey. Monitors can display a much higher dynamic range than paper.

i'll post here several tentative 300dpi cards, so we can discuss them.

extreme wrote:Allright, I cut and renamed the rest. Several things:
-you said Haldir was overexposed and provided a corrected image which was even more overexposed. Overexposed means "too bright". Did you mean that and something happened with your image ? because on the contrary, I find the cards a little bit dark.
-you are of course aware that if we don't have perfectly calibrated monitor and scanner all discussions about color and brightness fidelity are useless. What I see on the monitor and what you see can be different things.
-just as in Magic, there are a lot of variations in color in the prints. It is impossible to match them, even if I had the time, it's an exercise in futility and I will only do it for cards that shift a lot from the average (there were about 4 in the dwarven culture and a few others for the rest).
-blacks should not be complete blacks. The borders are not black, they are just very dark grey. Monitors can display a much higher dynamic range than paper.

i'll post here several tentative 300dpi cards, so we can discuss them.

-i think i may have meant underexposed... the scan looked like there was a white film over it and the colors weren't saturated enough is what i meant. go with whichever direction of exposure means that.
-yes i'm aware we won't see the exact same things. i just tried to compare them to their printed versions because some of them (and not all, which really made me scratch my head) seemed to be scanning as much too light. i didn't mean for you to actually color correct them all to EXACTLY that tonality, just to give a general idea for how dark/light the print cards are. i thought i remembered you color-correcting MtG scans against physical cards you actually had in your hand, but maybe i remember incorrectly. apologies if i've caused any undue headaches or stress.
-again, that example you gave with the 4 Dwarven cards and the smattering of others are precisely why i gave the guidelines. it was only ever intended for the ones that are really wonky.
-again, yep. the card back is one of the biggest places that the color variation due to when it was printed shows up, and i actually looked through a decently large stack of cards to find one with that color quality. lots of other ones feel pale, almost sickly, but i'm sure it was Decipher's intention for it to be as close to black as possible. some of their print runs just didn't work so well, which they kind of asked for given the dark design of their color pallet.

the scans look very good very excited to eventually get them all ^^

here's the 01_06
http://www.mediafire.com/?kwz0jovjg4t