|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
High Quality scan's not that high quality. |
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,394 |
| Posted: | | | | @dvdgangster It must be nice to be able to use a 50" screen to view DVD Profiler on. I don't think that many of us are connected to anything remotely close to that size. While you may "understand [the current filesize] was ok back in the day, but in (soon to be 2009) it's just not good enough..." I doubt you'll find many people who agree with you -- at least insofar as having images that look good on a 50" screen. I think your best hope is to make your own scans and keep 'em locked and local. I'm not sure Invelos will ever have the storage capacity for images that suit your large monitor, at least not given the current state of technology. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole) Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges. DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote: In practical tests with verison 3.5.1, the program is able to use quality settings of 94-98 on most images and still keep within the file size limits. The quality setting used by 3.5 for contribution resizing is 75. That's matches what I've found with manually editing the covers - and the rear cover is almost always a lower compression ratio than the front cover due to all the text. |
| Registered: June 5, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 93 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote: In practical tests with verison 3.5.1, the program is able to use quality settings of 94-98 on most images and still keep within the file size limits. The quality setting used by 3.5 for contribution resizing is 75. This matches about what I find, when I manually create the JPG image to contribute Using GIMP to do the saving, you can preview the file size, and balance the JPG quality setting to get it as close to the 200,000byte limit as possible, and 94-96 is about right (don't think I've reached 98!). But the algorithm used for resizing is also a factor in IQ [Image Quality], as it can either make text too blurry or [sometimes] overly sharp. This is particularly true for rear covers, with the text. I quite often resize using several different algorithms to try to find the one that works best [to my eyes] for any given cover. What would be nice is if DVDP didn't recompress imported JPG files if they already met the file dimension and size requirements then our manually prepared JPGs would pass-through untouched, and not require the file-copying step to revert them back to as-prepared Request: could DVDP please have an option to have a default import directory for cover scans? It is really annoying having to re-navigate to the same directory every time, even between closing and opening another profile the only time it seems to remember is while a profile is open, so after selecting front image, searching for a back image starts in the last directory used. Even if not a globally save option, just remembering the last used directory while DVDP is open [for the whole session] would greatly help Another annoyance of mine [not related to DVDP's handling of images though] is covers that have been scaled out-of-proportion so that they are 500x700, when they should be smaller in one dimension to stay proportional. This makes things like the UK rating logo look oval instead of round | | | You can download higher resolution versions of any of my cover scans from here | | | Last edited: by Lewpy |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewpy: Quote: What would be nice is if DVDP didn't recompress imported JPG files if they already met the file dimension and size requirements then our manually prepared JPGs would pass-through untouched, and not require the file-copying step to revert them back to as-prepared I think the problem there is that when you load in a image, it's stored in memory fully uncompressed and when you save it, it saves it from memory and needs to be recompressed. Maybe some smarts to simply copy the image from it's source into the cover image directory on import and mark the cover image in memory as unchanged so it's not resaved on exiting/saving the profile (with cover backup if exited without saving). Or maybe make the cover import unreversable 'cause hell, the previous cover is available online. That would make the cover image processing ideal in my book and would leave me quite giddy. | | | Last edited: by Dr. Killpatient |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewpy: Quote: Another annoyance of mine [not related to DVDP's handling of images though] is covers that have been scaled out-of-proportion so that they are 500x700, when they should be smaller in one dimension to stay proportional. This makes things like the UK rating logo look oval instead of round Odd, my aspect ratio for cove scans never change... If I resize the cover window, the cover resizes itself but maintains the same aspect ratio. |
| Registered: June 5, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 93 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote: Quoting Lewpy:
Quote: Another annoyance of mine [not related to DVDP's handling of images though] is covers that have been scaled out-of-proportion so that they are 500x700, when they should be smaller in one dimension to stay proportional. This makes things like the UK rating logo look oval instead of round Odd, my aspect ratio for cove scans never change... If I resize the cover window, the cover resizes itself but maintains the same aspect ratio. Sorry, I meant cover scans submitted by others that I vote on, not any quirk of what I do or what DVDP does I occasionally see scans that are, say, stretched horizontally, which distorts the proportions and the contents of the image (circles become oval, etc.). It annoys me, that's all. I am just picky | | | You can download higher resolution versions of any of my cover scans from here |
| | W0m6at | You're in for it now Tony |
Registered: April 17, 2007 | Posts: 1,091 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting widescreenforever: Quote: 50" HTPC = what is this? 50-inch Home Theater PC (Personal Computer) | | | Adelaide Movie Buffs (info on special screenings, contests, bargains, etc. relevant to Adelaideans... and contests/bargains for other Aussies too!) |
| Registered: June 5, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 93 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting widescreenforever: Quote: Quoting dvdgangster:
Quote: I'm using the HQ cover images with OML on my 50" HTPC .. and to be honest, the so called HQ scans dont look good at all. .
Let me see if I can decipher this.. HQ= High Quality / OML = ??? / 50" HTPC = what is this? a 50 inch plasma monitor..?? what is wrong with just a 19" LCD ... ??/ ( no wonder the 'HQ' scans look terrible.. ) OML = Open Media Library, a plugin for Media Center that acts as a DVD library/catalogue. 50" HTPC = [as mentioned] a Home Theater PC (or Media Center PC) connected to a 50" TV (plasma/lcd/projector/etc.) I've used MyMovies (ages ago) on my HTPC, and it's nice to get DVD catalogue information while inside Media Center. | | | You can download higher resolution versions of any of my cover scans from here |
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|