| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 30, 2007 |  Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hey All,
Just a quick query. So I had reason recently that I lost my profiler directory - however had a profile backup so I was sweet. But I had to re-download all the images - still no biggie.
However noticed that after that, there was a very large variety of images in the directory. So here's my thought.
If its a high res as per the rules then the file size would be "around" 100DPI = 200K ??
Some covers I had scanned over 10 years ago were done with a crappy hand scanner and not have the definition that I would be able to get today with my current scanner. I can certainly see when I open them up on the big screen there is no definition in the quality of the text. Mind you this is on a 28' monitor.
Is it worth me rescanning these ones that are well under 50K (as they wouldn't be hi-res - eg 100DPI)??
I have done some but I am starting to think its a waste of time. |
|
| Registered: September 30, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | If you can scan in a cover of a profile that's of higher quality and submit it to the system, PLEASE DO  I still have so many really shiitake mushroomty quality covers in my local (by that I don't mean what the system is capable of as there's been a recent surge in debate about that, I just mean some really really REALLY shiitake mushroomty covers in my system... washed out... out of focus... dirty... tons of dust and surface noise on them... etc. etc.) I WISH someone would take the time to scan a couple of covers and submit them so I can benefit from that work. Unfortunately I think about 10 Canadian use this system  So it doesn't happen a lot. But really, if you can submit something that's of higher quality (keep in mind the system DOES resize what you submit so if you have an AMAZING scan it will get reduced in quality no matter what, but that doesn't mean it still won't be better than what's there now) then I'm sure folks who own the profile would appreciate it. | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hey Merrik,
Thanks for the reply. Yup I noticed the resizing and my numbers were calculated on that. The size I am scanning is about 600KB and hence get resized to about 200KB.. but the less than 50KB ones are really rubbish. However depends on who is looking at this and what kind of screen size they are viewing them on. This makes a lot of difference certainly if they are the same size within the profiler. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,715 |
| | Posted: | | | | Any improvement is welcome.
If you have time: Do It.
• Scan them in the size and quality, which suits for you
• Lock them locally!
• Contribute them regardless of the compression
• Don't take weird No votes personal (at least in the German community this is very important)
And, the most important advice:
• BACKUP YOUR DATA BASE LOCALLY on a regular basis to conserve them | | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have looked at some of the no votes. Some of them have merit and some are just plain silly. Ultimately I am just looking at the kind of quality of the scans and whether they can be improved upon. Certainly for the large percentage of mine I know I can as I know the scanner I was using.
Anyway will chip away at them. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,384 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Wazh, I personally appreciate the new scans as many were from long ago. I wish I had the time to redo them, as I usually do a complete overhaul of the profile!
Cheers Kelvin |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hey Rutan, I feel like I know you as I always see your name on the contributions before me For sure some of them are very old and pre the move to invelos from the old dvdprofiler system. Even to the point that I had to get some of them out of storage as I have replaced them on Blu-ray/4K. However I think for now I have done the ones that I need to do. Looking at file size now its the harder box sets that need to be done (which I might do eg the old Next Generation/Voyager/Enterprise boxes) Not sure whether I will take the trouble just to stick the box under the scanner or try and take a picture but they are sitting about 30K in file size so they are quite small). Either way with the old stuff its been an interesting exercise as some of them the profile was wrong and or I have used the incorrect UPC so I have had to move the entire profile to a new one. That's given me an opportunity to clean up about 10 of the old ones I had in my database. With my database approaching 15 years old I am sure that its needed a little bit of a spring clean. Either way enjoy... |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well looks like some of my low->high res upgrades didn't make the cut (even if I originally contributed them). Not sure what's going on there. I presume its cos it didn't get any votes at all and makes it an instant decline. Seems a shame considering the time I spent on them. AiAustria should I take a no votes personally Oh well I get to appreciate them locally at least. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Contributions without any votes do not get an automatic decline. In my experience it is just the opposite. without an obvious reason to decline it they let them go through. Declines usually has some sort of reason given by invelos. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hey Hey, This was one of them and was only a 40K image. Not the best example but was trying to clear up some previous messes of mine with the strobing around the lettering and the generally bad original scan. I suspect that it just wasn't a massive enough difference to warrant the upgrade http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=111000&PageNum=LAST   |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | @wazh: Your new scan is perfectly fine, of course. However, as you can see for yourself, the resizing and compressing Invelos puts it through ensures that the resulting image is hardly a significant improvement there over the old one - it's merely darker, but really nothing else. That's not your fault: again, it's purely due to the resizing and compressing Invelos puts your original image through.
All in all, it may be time for Invelos to up their image quality standards a bit, while on the other hand, I also recognize the fact that storing larger images in the online database will cost Invelos more serverspace to host them. I assume that's the reason it hasn't happened yet. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | What may help is to indicate in your contribution notes in what way the new scans are better than the existing ones. In my experience if you do this, they will almost invariably go through. |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've also seen that the screeners make mistakes.
When the scans are better, or the data is correct, resubmit the contribution and alert the screeners that should have been approved and state why. | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | All Thanks for your responses. I inputted one back in with some more detail.
T!M - Agreed but remember as well that when I am looking at the raw images in the directory to see if I am going to actually add anything to the detail of the shot I can see the differences. But certainly (which is why I included both pictures) the comparison shot within the interface you cant see that much. Certainly can within the scan program (that was the first shot). Not sure why my original scans were so bright as well - it must of been the scanner as the image isn't that brightly lit and the colours appear washed out. I suppose it depends on preference. Not that I like the darker shots but its just closer to the original cover. I can certainly brighten them up if that's what people want.
I did notice that out of the 250+ rescans I did that the 20+ declined had no votes whatsoever. So perhaps the overall change in the database comes down to the votes for something that is a visual. I don't think me looking at the actual images in the directory has helped as I have bypassed the actual compression and changes that invelos does within their interface.
However the thought that I had was that we are given an option for Hi-Res within the interface. There is little point in doing that if the shots are going to be the same anyway - whatever option you pick. Either way a 150K+ increase in the actual file size to bring better clarity I would personally prefer. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | Invelos' compression with reds is not the greatest. What I've had better success with is reducing the image, in a third party program, to the maximum requirements (500x700) and dpi and resubmitting those images to try and avoid the Invelos web site from resizing and compressing the image. Also, make sure the image quality in DVD Profiler is set to 100% (default is 85%) otherwise that will induce issues. You can find this setting, when editing an image in DVD Profiler from the menu bar:
File -> Adjust compression
This will be remembered for all images.
You can then always put back your larger image for your personal database. |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hey rdodolak,
Great information to know. Yup mine was still at the default so changed that. Will try that idea with the reducing the image size and resubmitting that way. Will try and see if that makes a difference with the resubmission |
|