I have to go with physical size. Because it is the only thing we can see in the comparison screen. I would say you may have a point if the comparison screen also told you the size of the file as well as show you the images. But it don't. I would have to think if that is what Ken meant he would have gave us the info to determine it at a simple glance.

Thanks Pete.  I had the same thought once I'd thought about it.  It's hard to make a judgement if you only have one side of the story.

It's just that to me, image size normally means file size, as this is often closely associated with clarity.  Until the no vote I'd never even considered it meant physical size, as you can pretty well resize anything to any size electronically.  I guess in my work life e-mailing big image files is something I need to do quite often, so file size is a big deal to me given the limitiations of e-mail.

I scan at 600dpi, crop the image, remove dirt specs and darken it a bit. Then I resize it to the max limits 700*500 (a normal amaray cover usually ends up with about 700*490). The image then is usually below the 200,000 bytes limit for contribution.

Then I open the profile, switch to covers and select "Open File" ("Adjust Compression" under "File" is set to 100) and contribute it.

I can't imagine why a physically smaller image would ever be acceptable as a replacement. it never gas been and was never intended to be. File size? Not a chance. When someone submits a 600 DPI image reduced down to 500 pixels wide, the standard BTW,  and approximately 1 MB in size, you are not going to be able to submit  a much larger file size that is going to be physically smaller. Some of us go to 800DPI at approximately 1.5MB. What do you think; you are going to submit a 10MB image, rofl, Invelos own system will reduce that to about 500 wide and result in massive artifacting and generally just a mess for an image.

You created your own interpretation without doing any research and this has been discussed many times and Ken has stated he wants the images to be approximately 500 wide by about 700 high, which is what is generally the size of most images, plus or minus a little bit. BD, of course will come out differently as the proportions are not the same as DVD

It's only understandable, Martian, as long as one uses blinders. It doesn't take much reviewing of images Online or images that are up for vote to figure out that file size is NOT the ticket. I have never seen an image approved, unless it was done by accident, where an image that was 500 wide was allowed to be dropped to say 250 wide. While his thinking it meant file size might be understandable, a review of the actual Online files and images that are up for votes that involve reduced image size would definitely show otherwise. I don't know the exact numbers but let's say that 98% of the images are Online are 500 wide, as ken has requested, and now somebody wants to apply his interpretation of file size while reducing the image size, then he is wrong plain and simple, and I suspect that 98% is pretty close to accurate, save for upcoming titles which might be anything or some esoteric titles titles that are in a small number of collections and have not yet been updated.

This logic also applies to many of the various questions here in the forums. It seems that very few people will actually think to themselves, Ok I have this question, let's check the Online for some similar titles and see what is revealed. Most times, I suspect that would provide the answer that one is searching for. For example, the old question of a single sidded disc with two films on it which continues to periodically crop up. So go look up Village of the Damned/Children of the Damned or some similar title and guess what you will learn the answer real quick.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
I always scan at 300dpi and never have to change sizes. My scans come in too big, and profiler fits them for me, it's a beautiful thing.

No, it isn't a "beautiful thing." Photoshop does it much better. It sounds like you are saying you scan directly into Profiler and do no clean up, retouching, or resizing. That doesn't sound like a "beautiful thing" at all to me.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
You created your own interpretation without doing any research and this has been discussed many times and Ken has stated he wants the images to be approximately 500 wide by about 700 high, which is what is generally the size of most images, plus or minus a little bit.

This is the first time I’ve contributed an image and it’s come up small.  I’ve no idea why.  As I said previously, up to now I’ve always contributed images that I’ve resized myself to 700 pixels high.  When I withdrew the submission and tried again, it was fine.  I didn’t attempt to apply any sort of definition that resulted in a smaller image, I just did what I always do and it came up small.  My original scans are around 2000 pixels high.  Maybe a little glich occurred somewhere, or I just typed the wrong number in when I was resizing both pictures, who knows?

I’ve never had need to specifically sit and consider what image size really means up until now, as this has never been an issue before and all the scans I've contributed up to now have been accepted, which suggests I must be doing them right.  There certainly are ‘small’ images in the database; I’ve replaced one or two myself, so looking through lots of them doesn’t provide an entirely definitive answer to the question.  In a way the answer doesn't have much bearing on things anyway, as the guidance says (as you’ve pointed out) that images should be of a minimum physical size, which I've always followed.  I was just asking out of curiosity.

You should be pleased that the voting system in this case has worked, I am.  Relax, the integrity of the database remains unblemished!

Paul

Quoting Merrik:

Quote:


People see things in other people's posts around this fourm that I just can't for the life of me, even after re-reading them numerous times, see for myself.

All I'm seeing is bigdaddyhorse saying the program resizes the images you submit (to Profiler standards). Which it does.

Where's this other stuff coming from?

You aren't the only one who feels this way.  As bigdaddy clearly stated that he "never (has) to change sizes," I read it the same way you did.