| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 25, 2007 | | Posts: 4 |
| | Posted: | | | | 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.
As i understand it the max. resolution and size of the coverscans are 500x700 pixels and about 200kb (200,000 bytes).
The biggest problem is the terrible compression artifacts on most back covers with the low allowed file size. You guys need to raise the size file quite a bit (and maybe the resolution too).
I understand this was ok back in the day, but in (soon to be 2009) it's just not good enough.
Thanks. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Gangster:
Do you have an unlimted amount of money to spend so that Ken can increase the storage to go with your proposal. Many of us do our own scans, for example myself, 99% of my images are scanned at 800DPI and a lot larger the that generated Online, and NO image from the Online winds up in my database, unless it is wishlist. You have to understand the limtations, and recognize that locally you are free to do whatever you want to do, including create and store your own images. Now to try and give you a little perspective, the backup file for my database with my Cover Scans is now in excess of 11GB, and even at that, my images are not sized as I would like them to be BUT, I have to recognize the tradeoff, and not put myself into a situation where every backup would take TWO days to generate.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | The main problem with why there are so many artifacts online is because when people upload their scans, it's recompressed if it exceeds the 500x700 size and/or 200,000 byte limit - which is almost always. This typically results in a file that's around 65k in size. Text and solid colors (especially reds) seem to take the biggest hit here.
The ideal solution would be the submission process updated to resize the image starting at 0% JPeg compression and then progressively increasing the compression ratio until the end result is equal to or under 200,000 bytes. The submit may take a few seconds longer but the end result would be ideal cover scans.
Alternately, people who scan in their own images can perform the same process but it's a tedious manual process. I personally do it and I give kudos to anyone else who does as well. | | | | Last edited: by Dr. Killpatient |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,774 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think another important point (besides server space and traffic) is that the covers in the online database are meant to be at a size where printing is no real option.
I'm pretty sure that *IF* Ken would allow bigger sized scans (e.g. 1000x1400) people could abuse them for copied DVDs and some over-eager studios could try to lawyer up and make Ken's life VERY uncomfortable.
Personally I'm content with the actual size, but compression could really use some improvement though. |
|
| Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | FYI, for 3.5.1, the program will try multiple quality settings to squeeze out the best quality when contributing. The image resolution remains the same, but this should significantly reduce artifacting for those who have not been preparing the images for contribution manually, and remove the manual step for those who have.  | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,774 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | Last edited: by SpaceFreakMicha |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Initial reaction:
SWEET! |
|
| Registered: March 25, 2007 | | Posts: 4 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
FYI, for 3.5.1, the program will try multiple quality settings to squeeze out the best quality when contributing. The image resolution remains the same, but this should significantly reduce artifacting for those who have not been preparing the images for contribution manually, and remove the manual step for those who have. Please raise the allowed file size. Compression artifacts will be visible at the current image sizes no matter how much improved your automatic system is. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm fine with the current size limits.
Actually, what annoys me more are image updates that double the file size without providing any significant quality improvement. | | | | Matthias |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I am also fine with the current file size. Wouldn't particularly want the images any bigger then they are now. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 25, 2007 | | Posts: 4 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goodguy: Quote:
I'm fine with the current size limits.
Yeah, I was too, until I got a big quality display. Quote:
Actually, what annoys me more are image updates that double the file size without providing any significant quality improvement.
Well, you can always go for the low resolution images if that suits you better  The "HQ image tag" is plain and simple misleading, as there are nothing HQ about them. |
|
| Registered: March 25, 2007 | | Posts: 4 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I am also fine with the current file size. Wouldn't particularly want the images any bigger then they are now. I agree.. notice I'm talking about file size (not image size) and small file sizes leads to the nasty compression artifacts you se on most of the HQ images now. - | | | | Last edited: by dvdgangster |
|
 | W0m6at | | You're in for it now Tony |
| Registered: April 17, 2007 |  Posts: 1,091 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Many of us do our own scans, ..., locally you are free to do whatever you want to do, including create and store your own images. ^ I strongly recommend skipnet50's suggestion, as it appears to be the only way you will achieve the quality you're aiming for. Although it may be a mammoth task, attacking it in a piecemeal fashion may help get through. As he alluded, many other users already do this, to get the quality THEY are aiming for. Further to this, users make other personal choices to adapt their local database to suit their preferences. | | | | Adelaide Movie Buffs (info on special screenings, contests, bargains, etc. relevant to Adelaideans... and contests/bargains for other Aussies too!) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dvdgangster: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I am also fine with the current file size. Wouldn't particularly want the images any bigger then they are now.
I agree.. notice I'm talking about file size (not image size) and small file sizes leads to the nasty compression artifacts you se on most of the HQ images now.
- Then let me clarify.. I prefer the current image size... Not everyone has a big quality display... and for those of us that do not such a large image can become a real problem. just like how the low resolution images is not worth having.... a huge image isn't either (for some of us)... I think the chosen image size that invelos went with is just right. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | 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. | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,493 |
| | Posted: | | | | 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..  ) | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry |
|