Map packs and image sizes

I've purchased a couple of map, tile and token packs from the Roll20 and I'm a little confused on how I'm supposed to now the appropriate size for an image given the standard 1 unit grid on Roll20, mostly because I'm not sure it's consistent between different artists. For example, I've purchased the Nature Pack from Brass Badger. The images all include sizes in the name, but I'm not sure which measurement they are exactly referencing. For example, there are forest floor tiles that come size they are 150x150. Is that supposed to be 150 feet in-game feet, given the standard 1 unit = 5 feet? That's what seems logical to me, but when you drag them in from the art library, they come in much smaller at 10 feet by 10 feet.

I'm guessing it means 150 units in page size. Which seems awfully large. Or it could be 150 pixels.

HoneyBadger said: Or it could be 150 pixels. Yup, it's the dimension in pixels. By default, a square has a length of 70 pixels. So, these tiles may be intended to be used as 2 x 2 squares in size (which is often 10 ft. by 10 ft. in D&D).

Good question, Frank. It is not entirely consistent since different Marketplace artists use different methods of captioning-titles-tagging to inform you of the proper sizes they were designed for. Hopefully, Brass Badger (artist) will see this thread and come to answer directly for their sets. It seems to me most likely this artist may have meant 150 feet x 150 feet, this would be 30x30 UNITS of 5 feet per unit.  Try this size.  When I looked on the Nature Pack that you linked, some of the forest tiles with tree tops, I think would look good on this size, so this is my top guess. This guess also seems to match roughly with the Dead Trees, boulders, and Ferns that are in that pack. For example a fern that says 05x05, this would surely be just 1 square unit of 5 feet x 5 feet, because a fern wouldn't be much larger than that (one square).  It wouldn't mean 5x5 pixels (too small for a fern), and it also wouldn't mean 5x5 units (too large for a fern or a tree trunk).

Yeah, that makes the most sense to me as well. Still, thought I'd run it by the collective wisdom and see if my thinking was correct. I also have another map pack where I think the artist used units in his titles (lots of 1x1 items), so that also made me want to check. For the record, the 150x150 item in the nature pack is 4200 pixels x 4200 pixels. 

Just to give some stats that sometimes help with this, one Unit in Roll20 is 70x70 pixels at 100% zoom.  Typically a lot of Tokens are designed at 140x140 or higher, yet fits into 1 unit, the reason is that the token still looks good at 200% zoom (or when you press "Z" or the GM press "Shift-Z" on the token to pop it up larger view). Map tiles can be designed or placed with this higher resolution / density of pixels per unit (to achieve maximum sharpness at zoom levels above 100%), however, as a practical matter, map tiles often look quite good with the regular 100%, 70 pixels per unit, even if you zoom, on a map texture it often stretches and still looks good.  I'm like you, I would like to place the Map Tiles in the exact size intended by the artist-designer, but as a practical matter you can vary it a bit larger or smaller and it often works convincingly well on tiles.

4200/140 = 30, which leads me to believe Gold is correct with his sumizing that 150 is intended to be feet (150/5 = 4200/140 = 30 ).