The naming convention for images is the UPC used in the profile followed by either an "f" (for front image) or a "b" (for back image).  The UPC for discs entered by disc ID, is the letter "I" followed by the disc ID, then followed by either "f" or "b".

Since you're in the U.S., I won't go into the additional info needed for "region" distinction, unless you have other than Region 1 discs.

Quoting redscull:

Quote:
I know I can scan them myself. But my DVDP database always re-sizes my images when I edit a movie to import my own image. How do I stop it from doing that? I'd prefer not having to do all my own scans just to get better images, but I can't even figure out how to make that work if I wanted to. I know I could manually name my scans and upload them to my website fully external to anything DVDP, but I prefer just to pull my images out of my DVDP repository (even if it's my own scanning that loads them there).

Why do you assume that higher res images would "blow up" the servers? In my opening request I pointed out that 4x res scans take only 50% more space. 1 million ultra-hi res movie covers would require about a half terrabyte of data. My 2yr old laptop has that much disk space on it. If that little data is an issue for Invelos, they should re-think their business model (go to subscription - I'd pay a monthly fee to cover the nominal bandwidth increase needed to access ultra-hi re images).

At least the counter-point about inadvertently promoting bootlegs seems valid. I certainly don't want Invelos to get in trouble with movie studios.

Edit: I guess I'll quit asking on this. Piracy concerns aside, I really didn't see how this could possibly impact anyone negatively. I suppose if I didn't personally have a need for cover art that looked better than a zoomed-in thumbnail I would adamantly oppose it for everyone else too...

Sorry to see you were offended by my post.
I didn't mean to wipe your proposal of the board, but simply wanted to show a workaround until Invelos raises the limits for scan sizes, which isn't something I would expect any time soon.

Regarding the "automatic resizing" of your pics: Possibly a stupid question, but do you have "High-Res" enabled? Please check under "Tools -> Options -> Display"

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
Regarding the "automatic resizing" of your pics: Possibly a stupid question, but do you have "High-Res" enabled? Please check under "Tools -> Options -> Display"

The program will always do an "automatic resize" if you drag and drop them in the program.  The only way to retain higher res images is to save them directly to the images directory.

If i choose "DVD -> edit cover images" and add the new ones, they will not be resized. However they will be saved again, which in JPG format means the image quality will weaken. This will not happen if you do it your way. However it doesn't effect the size.

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
If i choose "DVD -> edit cover images" and add the new ones, they will not be resized. However they will be saved again, which in JPG format means the image quality will weaken. This will not happen if you do it your way. However it doesn't effect the size.

Good to know.  I never use the "DVD-> edit cover images" function, so didn't know that.

Well, it's not a matter of the number of users but the number of profiles.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Well, it's not a matter of the number of users but the number of profiles.

In terms of data transfer volume it is a matter of the number of users.

PNG is a lossless format, meaning you can save and resave the file and the quality remains exactly the same. For this to be possible, complicated graphics (like a picture) usually have to take up significantly more space than a JPG of the same dimensions.

JPG is a good format for images because it reduces the file size to a more reasonable level with the sacrifice of quality (more loss with tighter compression) and unfortunately continues to lose quality with each resave of a JPG file.

While PNG is a better format for keeping enough detail to see smaller things (like fine print) nearer the original, once the file has been resized (as happens with image submitted to the database) PNG becomes less useful because the act of resizing decreases quality no matter how it is saved after that. At that point, losing just a little more quality through use of JPG over PNG is not very significant.


For example: you start with a new scanned file. Saved as PNG it's 100% quality (based on the scan, not the original image). If it had been saved as a JPG with minimal compression, it might be 98% original quality. Now you upload the image to the database (just assume PNG files  can go through) and the first thing that it does is make the image half as large. The image quality from the original is already reduced to 50% give or take prior to even saving the file. If the system saved it as a PNG then it would remain 50%. If it saved to JPG it might end up 48% of the original. So, using PNG isn't the "save all" for improving image quality here.

Quoting Blair:

Quote:
So, using PNG isn't the "save all" for improving image quality here.

TBH i would be completely happy IF i could use PNG even just locally (i.e. my own scans). When i add the files to the program, the quality decreases. After upload the server could change it to JPG, i wouldn't care. Only thing i would really lose are those that Mithi said.