Moderator: Falconer
Thank you!grodog wrote:In the earliest printings of the PHB, it's "Perfect" but should be "Prefect." However, when they tried to fix it in the third printing (when the endpapers were still orange/goldenrod), it was left out completely, and was blank in the subsequent printingsInfo @ http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_phb.html The error also appears on the DM Screen as "Perfect" on both the 3/3 panels and 4/2 panels versions.
Color doesn't require glossy paper. As any newspaper should illustrate.Chainsaw wrote:... (maybe the color pages required a thicker gloss?)...
Paper and ink choice can indeed affect such things, but more likely it's the 'copy-of-a-copy" effect.grodog wrote:- My hunch is the the different paper stock made the art darker when it was printed, probably.
Matthew wrote:I noticed they spelled "armour" wrong in every instance, and since I just cannot stand that sort of editorial sloppiness I am going to have to pass on these otherwise very attractive volumes.
Thanks, Donovan: that'll be very useful info!Chainsaw wrote:I totally agree and [snip] I'll do an experiment tonight and post a pic.Falconer wrote:The reason I don’t like the glossy paper is that it makes it much harder to pencil things in. I haven’t tested that, but I assume.
You're welcome, GaborMelan wrote:Thank you!grodog wrote:In the earliest printings of the PHB, it's "Perfect" but should be "Prefect." However, when they tried to fix it in the third printing (when the endpapers were still orange/goldenrod), it was left out completely, and was blank in the subsequent printings
Ditto: I'm pretty sure our FLGS will have an open copy to flip through. Still not planning to buy these, but they are on my Amazon wish list, at leastSimperingToad wrote:A pity they had to shrink these so I can't check them out at the store. I'm rather curious about the construction for some odd reason now... also wanted to check out the pics first hand.
Even with high-res scans, Paul? I assumed that given all of WotC's art clean-up effort that the artwork would be scanned at sufficiently high-resolution to be nearly perfect reproductions. However, clearly the art printed as substantially darker. What other issues could be a factor in that? (I'm not arguing with you, btw, just trying to get a handle on what other kinds of issues could crop up with reproducing art from scans, since Black Blade has a few projects that could run into the same issues).SimperingToad wrote:Paper and ink choice can indeed affect such things, but more likely it's the 'copy-of-a-copy" effect.grodog wrote:- My hunch is the the different paper stock made the art darker when it was printed, probably.
? Thanks in advance.One of the things I've often heard was the AD&D 1e was not rules light. And it probably wasn't by 1978 standards. It certainly is by today's mainstream gaming standards. Sure, it's quite a bit heavier than many indie type games out now, but it's quite a bit lighter than any of the top selling games out now.Falconer wrote:People at Games Plus were amazed at the slimness of the volumes, as I mentioned before, but I failed to mention they were amazed vis-à-vis the thickness of today’s RPGs (i.e., the 3.5e core clocks in at 960 pages total). I saw the DCC RPG for the first time, while I was there, and man, what a beast of a book!
In all, I am VERY happy about this reprint. A total victory!
I don't know that it's possible to be completely perfect. It would have helped if they had original art. The originals were probably shot on a stat camera or something similar at a reduced size. And I can see on some illos places where things washed out, or look filled in. I had the opportunity to use a stat camera many years ago in the late '80s, and while I got pretty good at getting the settings quite nice for paste-up, some details often got lost, sometimes merely from the reduction, but other times it was just impossible to get all the details in dark areas to show without other spots washing out, or vice versa. I don't see scanning to be much different in that regard. I had the benefit of not having type on the reverse side of the art too. They did mention having difficulty dealing with that. Hell, even in the dimly lit room I'm in now, I can see the text on the other side of my PHB pages. Using back lighting for this project could have helped the cause, but by appearances (and understandably), they didn't use this.grodog wrote:Even with high-res scans, Paul? I assumed that given all of WotC's art clean-up effort that the artwork would be scanned at sufficiently high-resolution to be nearly perfect reproductions. However, clearly the art printed as substantially darker. What other issues could be a factor in that? (I'm not arguing with you, btw, just trying to get a handle on what other kinds of issues could crop up with reproducing art from scans, since Black Blade has a few projects that could run into the same issues).SimperingToad wrote:Paper and ink choice can indeed affect such things, but more likely it's the 'copy-of-a-copy" effect.grodog wrote:- My hunch is the the different paper stock made the art darker when it was printed, probably.
Dang. I know you don't really givvva giant rat's-a about collector value, but you coulda "rewrote" it a little neater, no?Chainsaw wrote: Rewrote word
You ought to eBay that original shrinkwrap. It's worth a lot to collectors.capitalbill wrote:Oh no! There goes the collectibility value.
