First, let me say I tried to determine if this has already been requested. But search was timing out, and I couldn't find anything by manually looking for posts. Also, I've been a paid user for a very long time.

The current database of "high resolution" cover scans are generally about 500x700 pixels. This may have looked pretty 6+ years ago, but now even my cell phone stretches the image just to fill the screen. Can we please adopt a higher resolution (and slightly less jpg compression) for high resolution cover scans?

Bandwidth has gotten a lot faster and cheaper since the existing standard was adopted. Storage has gotten significantly bigger and cheaper too. And I realize that updating all the existing scans would be terribly daunting so I'm not suggesting a mandate to update old scans. But it'd be nice if we established a better spec for new images and allowed old images to be updated if people felt inclined.

I know I can do anything I want locally, but this is a community-driven product; I'd rather we all adopted this.

Now, as to what we should upgrade to, my personal wish is a meager 717x1004 so it fits "full screen" on an iPad in portrait orientation. But there's not a lot of future proofing in that number. Maybe a scale that'd work for showing front and back images, side by side, on a landscape retina iPad: 1024x1433. The current high-res scans tend to be under 200KB; even with jpg quality set pretty high (not much compression), 1024x1433 will still come in under 300KB.

At one time, I recall that Invelos stated that they were saving images in 120 DPI or 600X850 in anticipation of a future upgrade in image resolution for the program.

Locally, you can save them in whatever resolution you wish (provided you have a scanner).

While I understand your reason for wanting larger covers, because the scans are designed to be used in the program, I just don't see the need for anything larger than what we have. 

Maybe this could be a new feature in the program: Ultra-high Resolution Covers. The two existing options remain as they are, but this 3rd cover art option can be turned on to sync down 1024x1433 PNG images (where available as uploaded by the community - otherwise the standard hi-res JPG is displayed instead).

I bought DVD Profiler years ago and haven't given you any money since. But I would totally pay for an Ultra-high Res Covers upgrade, even if it meant that I'd be doing a lot of the scanning and contributing myself for awhile.

@whispering - Yes, JPG does make the text even fuzzier. Thanks for the PNG reminder.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I like pretty pictures too and would be interested in seeing your layout.  Both frint and back are visible in mine as well, but not in full master DB size.  I am curious to see what information you might, or might not be showing that I am.

You can see my layout there (resolution is 1920x1200): http://i.picoodle.com/6a9ifv2l

Since its in Finnish; crew is behind cast, comments is behind front cover, gallery is behind back cover and all technical stuff (audio, subs, disc info and easter eggs) is behind extras

I believe one of the original reasons for the 500x700 200byte limit on the online servers is that the images would not be suitable for (high-quality) bootlegs - another reason why Invelos doesn't store the spine.

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 opose it for everyone else too...

If you save the image directly to the "images" directory using the proper naming convention, you can save images in your local database at whatever resolution you wish.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
If you save the image directly to the "images" directory using the proper naming convention, you can save images in your local database at whatever resolution you wish.

Do I need to first add the DVD to my collection then overwrite the image that's there with my scan?Will DVDP know not to overwrite my image with one from its servers? What if I perform the action where DVDP re-syncs all the images from its online db? I ask because I think I need to do that since I haven't done so in quite a few years, and my DVDP db has some gnarled images in it (hi-res images that are only a few KB and thumbnails over 100KB).

Thanks. I do apprecaite the tip. I guess I'll do my own ultra-hi scans going forward.