Author |
Message |
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | From what I can gather, no matter how you get your scan in the Edit Cover profile screen, it gets resaved and recompressed.
I recommend that if you use the File > Open menu option and select a JPeg image that does not exceed the 500x700 and 200,000 byte contribution thresholds, simply copy the file and not resave it. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 350 |
| Posted: | | | | Most of us who want large, uncompressed images displayed in Profiler simply eschew the Edit Covers screen. If you simply copy the image that you want to the appropriate name in the correct directory, then it's all good.
Admittedly, the names can be a bit confusing for non-US- types due to the locale part of the name, but for US-locale profiles, the name is just the UPC + "f.jpg" for the front cover, and the UPC + "b.jpg" for the back cover.
The files go into "\Documents and Settings\<username>\My Documents\DVD Profiler\Databases\Defaut\IMAGES" assuming that you are using the default database location.
Profiler does not appear to fiddle with images in this directory; it seems to muck with them as it is putting them there initially ...
After doing this, you will need to rebuild the thumbnails (select thumbnail view, right-click the thumbnail selector icon for a context menu that lets you rebuild thumbnails), but this does not change the main images. | | | -fred | | | Last edited: by FredLooks |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | Doc: I haven't noticed what you refer to. Nearly all of my images are at my current standards of 800 X 500 @ 800DPI. I save them to profiler directly to the Images file of Profiler from Photoshop and they all retain their sizing (including a file size of approximately 2.5MB per image) with little or no loss noticeable. Theses raw images are the images I upload to Profiler, which then resizes them on the server end but with Ken's new allowances the loss due to server end compression in quite minimal now, so you in effect (most of the time) will simply get a smaller version of my file images. Doc, what is that funny gleam in your eye...wait a minute,,,now, Doc, put down the scalpel. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | The reason why I recommended this is for two reasons.
1. Primarily for image contribution. I spend way too much time getting covers to the max quality without going over the limits but I have to manually determine the correct file name and manually rename the images to match the one DVDP uses and manually copy them into the image directory. 2. So I don't have to do the manual parts in #1 above.
If you want to use images that are WAY above that for your own local use, do what it normally does.
I took an image that was within the contribution thresholds and imported it using the File -> Open menu item. When I closed the edit screen, the cover image was 356k, way above the contribution file size limits. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,692 |
| Posted: | | | | I've also found that if a copy a image (using ctrl C) that is being reviewed and just paste it into dvd profile (replacing the existing image) - then when this image gets released and is shown for comparison with the same image already in dvd profiler, that the copy in dvd profiler is larger. So it looks like images get compressed AFTER they have been reviewed and accepted into the database. | | | Paul |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | Come to think of it, if the user specifies a JPeg image file, the best thing is to copy the file instead of resaving it. By the very nature of the JPeg format, the saved version is no longer the same as the file they selected. Unless the user changed the default save quality, it'll always be a lower quality copy. |
|
Registered: June 12, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,665 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote: I haven't noticed what you refer to. Nearly all of my images are at my current standards of 800 X 500 @ 800DPI. I save them to profiler directly to the Images file of Profiler from Photoshop and they all retain their sizing (including a file size of approximately 2.5MB per image) with little or no loss noticeable. Theses raw images are the images I upload to Profiler, which then resizes them on the server end but with Ken's new allowances the loss due to server end compression in quite minimal now, so you in effect (most of the time) will simply get a smaller version of my file images. Is 800x500 a typo? If not, why 800 instead of 700 to match the 7x5 proportions of the cover? Do Dots Per Inch matter at the submission point? Obviously 800DPI makes for excellent detail when scanning (800DPI would make for a 6,400 x 4,000 dot scan) but when the image is reduced it's not still 800DPI is it? The dimensions of the image then define the 'dots' remaining. Your submitted images are consistently good so this obviously works for you and i've noted the Profiler compression engine is pretty good. I do it like Doc though, optimizing for 700 x 500 and 200,000 bytes and copying straight into the Images folder for submission. I know exactly what i'm sending this way. Then i go back and save a 1,400 x 1,000 uncompressed version for myself (source for both was a 600DPI [4,200 x 3,000] scan). | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | Yes it is , tweeter, I should have typed 800 wide..<slaps self>
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 1,380 |
| Posted: | | | | I use 1000x700 sized images with probably something like 300DPI. Havent really noticed any degrading in quality when i add them to DVDP. |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | I don't notice any degrade either but I have my DVDP compression ratio set to max quality - but that really affects the file size. |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,744 |
| Posted: | | | | I made an interesting observation.
I wanted to know whether or not the image gets compressed when I set up compression rate to 100%.
Then I created 2 manual profiles. In the first I used the File open dialog. For the second I opend the original file in MSPaint and copy and pasted it over into DVDP.
The result was .... unexpected.
The original JPEG was 1024 x 768 = 109'450 bytes.
After inserting it to DVDP (no matter what way) it was 360'809 bytes. | | | Karsten DVD Collectors Online
|
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | That's the nature of the beast with the JPeg compression routines. |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,744 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote: That's the nature of the beast with the JPeg compression routines. But where does the program get thrice the amount of information that is not encoded in the source picture? I can understand that an picture gets larger if you save it to another file format - like BMP - because it stores the data in another way, but the same file type? | | | Karsten DVD Collectors Online
| | | Last edited: by DJ Doena |
|
Registered: March 24, 2007 | Posts: 240 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting DJ Doena: Quote: I can understand that an picture gets larger if you save it to another file format - like BMP - because it stores the data in another way, but the same file type? JPEG has variable quality settings. The higher the setting the better the quality and the larger the file. If you take a low quality image and resave it at higher quality it will get bigger, but it will not look any better (garbage in, garbage out) but if you take a high quality image and save at a lower quality it will get smaller but look worse. When you paste an image into DVD Profiler it resaves it. If it ends up over the size limit it will be re-compressed again when you upload it. The result is an image in the online database that looks worse then your original image. MPG2 on DVDs works the same way, the more you put on a DVD the more you have to compress it. You can put 4 hours of video on a single layer disk but it's not going to look to good! | | | Tom. |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | I suspect that when you load an image into the DVDP cover editor, it is in raw format in memory. That way it can handle any graphics format because it all is represented the same in memory. Thus when saving as a JPeg image, it's saves the raw data in memory. Raw data isn't compressed at all. The Highlander cover I recently submitted is only 182k but the same image stored in memory is 1,020k. |
|