The Aaron said: If you look at that image, the max is 2048x956, while the original is 3000x1400. So, is 2048 the maximum long-dimension of an image as-it-is-loaded-and-displayed-on-tabletop? So, then, was my previous personal guideline of not creating maps larger than 5500x5500 overly optimistic? Edit: Ehhh, thinking occurred, upon reflection. More goes into this, since Roll20 is able to load a section of an image.. So I do believe that my 5500x maps are still providing greater detail when zoomed in, than would if I had limited my map uploads s to 2048x in the first place. I now guess that 2048x2048 is more than enough for any occasion in-which the entire image would (or could) be showing at 100% zoom. If you go smaller zooms, yes you can see more inches of the picture, but that is when a reduced/cached version could be used since you aren't at 100% anymore anyway. Even a 4K screen is only around 2000 pixels high. The "max" size makes sense after all, now that I think about it. Yay. Just remember that "max" isn't a maximum limitation of roll20, it's just the max that would be shown of the entire image at one time. If you are zoomed in getting a section of a picture (map) then it would still use the higher resolutions, including, probably, "original" file.