Can you post some specific info.  Which UPC and is it currently up for evaluation?  Do you have premium membership and have you checked high resolution covers option in the Options menu?

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Make sure you have the option set to High Quality from the Tools --> Options menu
.
When you're actually contributing an image, it'll automatically be downsized to a maximum of 100DPI so you will lose some quality but it certainly shouldn't be blocky unless the original scanned version was as well.

Ah, did not know that.  I have been scanning in covers at 150 dpi.  Incidentally, I checked the contribution rules and could not find a recommended dpi setting so I picked 150 as a good compromise.  I'll reset my choice to 100 for future scans and scan them 1.8 seconds faster.

Thanks,
DD.

I resize my images to 1100,, which automatically sets the other box ..

Everybody's scanner is different, but I've found that I end up with some very unsatisfactory results on anything scanned under 300 dpi.  Frankly, I've pushed it up to 600 dpi now.  Oh sure, the scans looks just fine on my end if I go 150 dpi, but after I submit them to Profiler they turn into pure crap.  At 600, they continue to look very nice.  Just a thought that you might want to consider increasing your resolution rather than decreasing it.

Hmm...I'm not sure of the type of scanner I used. It belongs to someone else and I brought my DVDs over for scanning purposes. I think it might be a Canon? It's one of those combo contraptions with printer, scanner, fax, etc. Maybe I had the res set to a low dpi or something. I dunno. If I get another opportunity this weekend, I might try again and play with the settings to see if I get different results.

Oh, and the films specifically are Heat, of which I have a UPC that isn't in the database yet, and 300, the non-combo HD DVD that can't be contributed yet because of the lack of Disc ID in DVDP v3.0. And yup, I have the option for High Quality images checked already.

Quoting Peacefrog:

Quote:
From the little bit I've learned about scanning from the nice folks here, it's best to resize yourself (as necessary) before submitting.  The proper submitted dimensions are no greater than 500x700 and I keep my file sizes under 185kb per cover(for a grand total of 370kb for both front and back). I believe the cap is actually slightly larger perhaps 190 or more, but I  like to be on the safe side.  As long as I keep within those parameters, the scans that I submit remain unaltered by the program.  That way you can be sure that what you submit will match exactly what is ultimately (hopefully  ) accepted.

I just tried this and it seemed to work for the Heat covers. I resized the images down to 500x700 and edited the profile to use the new images. They actually look okay now, almost as good as the images from the original profile and certainly a hell of a lot better than when I tried before. Perhaps it's the DVDProfiler internal compression utility that boggled the image quality? I dunno.

Having said that, it didn't seem to help too much for my 300 covers but I don't think that one's too big a deal since it can't be contributed anyway and I'm sure that by the time v3.5 becomes official, more experienced contributors will be uploading much better profiles than mine.

xradman:
I scanned the whole cover art (front, spine, back) and then cropped the front and back before saving the image files. Then in DVDP, I edit the profile, open the front and back files as appropriate. Nothing out of the ordinary. However, as stated above, this time around I added the steps of resizing the images before loading them into the profile. Oh, and FWIW, it would seem that my scans were done at 300dpi.

Thanks for the help, fellas!

Quoting xradman:

Quote:
Under Cover Scans menu in the Edit menu, there is a compression setting.  It is set by default to 85%.  Perhaps yours was set much lower?

It's possible but I don't think I played with any settings. I'll check it when I get home after work.

Quoting Peacefrog:

Quote:
Quoting Katatonia:

Quote:
It all depends on the scanner used. I usually scan at 300dpi and they turn out just fine. I've found that anything higher is overkill by the time I resize it to submit, and 600dpi won't add any benefit. You can have a crappy scanner and scan at 600dpi, and a better scanner set at 300dpi will easily beat it.

I don't let the program resize them, as it will add unwanted compression. If I resize and move them manually into the scans directory of the program, that way they will look exactly the same, with no alteration, when I submit them from the program. The size cap per cover is 199,999kb.

I have yet to see a Kat-Scan (no pun intended  )  that I didn't like.  Listen to Katatonia.

I think you also mentioned a canon scanner. I use a canon multi-function printer/scanner and scan at 300dpi and my scans turn out ok.  They usually need some post-processing but there are some good programs out there to help with that.  I use an older version of paint shop pro for resizing, cropping and any necessary processing. Taking the time to do it really makes a difference in the final product.  I have found that DVDprofiler does a horrible job with resizing/compression when it comes to reds.  The compression artifacts are terrible. I have no idea why, but PS pro does a much better job.

I'm getting back into the scanning game as well. I've been using a Canon Pixma 530 for the last couple years now. I used to use PictureIt9 for all my editing, but then my old computer died and I'm Vista now which won't run that program.
Anyway, I played with my settings and have been getting good scans again, although they always need some touching up. My old ones needed color boosts, but everything lately is fine with a quick crop and bump up the contrast a bit with Windows viewer. Even those pesky reds look red again!
The whole time I've been scanning at 300dpi.
Kat does have it mastered though, I can't touch his scans and look forward to seeing submissions from him. That reminds me there were a couple obscure horror discs I was looking at recently on my local that said Kat did the scans, but they aren't up there in quality with most of his recent work. Of course I forgot which ones they were before shooting a PM out to request new ones.   Must've either been an old, bad scanner or just now the art is perfected. I know scans I do now crush ones I did a year ago on the same scanner.

Everyone keep at it and you'll only get better, and they all start going quicker as well when you know exactly what needs to be done. Don't let anyone fool you, if someone says they aren't touching their scans up somehow, they are lying!