| Author |
Message |
| Registered: September 29, 2008 |  Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi all, I came across this question when someone voted no on one of my image contributions. He had made a few comments in regards to how it wasn't an improvement. And while I would have loved to check to see if what he said was correct or see if my image was indeed what he was referring to, I didn't know how. In the "My Contributions" all I get access is who voted yes or no, and what my comments were. Is there a way to check the images side by side again? Like when you first contribute the image or what voters see when they are voting? I know that I can view the differences in the Online > Update Profile > Preview Changes... in the software but that shows a comparison of my non compressed image to that of the compressed image online. This doesn't help me much. What I ended up doing was trying to resubmit the same image so I could take a look at the comparison again (not knowing that this would erase my previous contribution  ). Anyway, hopefully is just something simple I'm missing.  If not, feature request maybe? | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | when you look at your list of contributions on the site... click on this icon:  That will take you to the contribution notes for that title. and from there you can click on the link to see the voting page that the voters see. Please remember that when it comes to scans what he sees may not be the same of what you see. Pretty much every monitor shows images differently as well as every ones eyes are different. So submitting and voting on images are very subjective. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: September 29, 2008 | | Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks for the quick reply! That worked just fine, not the most intuitive thing in the world, but at least it's there. And yes, I do understand that images are very subjective and have to keep that in mind. It's really hard to tell what the community wants sometimes. At any rate, thanks again for the info, I thought I was probably just missing something and I guess I was.  | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'll most likely get a ton of negative feedback for this -- but my star was taken away during a week when I got a number of positive and two negative flashes, so what do I care?
The community seems to approve scans which:
1) have little grain in the oversaturated reds
2) are so sharpened all edges are nearly neon
3) have contrast set very high (very = extremely)
4) all detail in dark areas is turned to complete black
Just my opinion, just my job (for a few decades) to evaluate scans for reproduction... so what does my opinion matter? | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VibroCount: Quote:
I'll most likely get a ton of negative feedback for this -- but my star was taken away during a week when I got a number of positive and two negative flashes, so what do I care?
The community seems to approve scans which:
1) have little grain in the oversaturated reds
2) are so sharpened all edges are nearly neon
3) have contrast set very high (very = extremely)
4) all detail in dark areas is turned to complete black
Just my opinion, just my job (for a few decades) to evaluate scans for reproduction... so what does my opinion matter? Well, I don't do it for a living, but to my eye I'd say you're dead on. I've had a lot of scans nixed over time because they weren't like that. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VibroCount: Quote:
I'll most likely get a ton of negative feedback for this -- but my star was taken away during a week when I got a number of positive and two negative flashes, so what do I care?
The community seems to approve scans which:
1) have little grain in the oversaturated reds
2) are so sharpened all edges are nearly neon
3) have contrast set very high (very = extremely)
4) all detail in dark areas is turned to complete black
Just my opinion, just my job (for a few decades) to evaluate scans for reproduction... so what does my opinion matter? I actually agree with you, but the problem is, liking or not liking a scan is so subjective. Most importnat to me is when I vote, is the color close to the original and is the scan clean. cheers Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
|
| Registered: September 29, 2008 | | Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VibroCount: Quote:
The community seems to approve scans which:
1) have little grain in the oversaturated reds
2) are so sharpened all edges are nearly neon
3) have contrast set very high (very = extremely)
4) all detail in dark areas is turned to complete black
This might very well be true, and thanks for your input. The scans that I got a single No on did have 5 other Yes votes, but it's hard to say if it would have passed or not. For my submissions I tend to lean a bit to the darker contrast but not so that the bright colors come off as too dark. I import the image into a photo editting program and enhance the lights, darken the darks and the mids which tend to give a very accurate representation of what the real cover looks like IMO. Blacks on the cover should look black not light gray. But the blacks shouldn't be so dark that detail within that black is lost. Anyway, maybe I should resubmitt the scans since I accidently cancelled them. If they get declined, oh well, local goez! | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | From my experience, voters could care less about how the images closely represent the cover. They like contrast blown completely out to reveal "detail" in the shadows that you couldn't actually see unless the cover was sitting directly under a klieg light. My favorite comment for cover submissions is "too much loss of detail". Then I pull the actual cover out and find that you can't even actually see all this great "detail".  | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
From my experience, voters could care less about how the images closely represent the cover. They like contrast blown completely out to reveal "detail" in the shadows that you couldn't actually see unless the cover was sitting directly under a klieg light.
My favorite comment for cover submissions is "too much loss of detail". Then I pull the actual cover out and find that you can't even actually see all this great "detail". I'll agree with some of that. I saw a contribution declined a little while ago because less detail was shown than the existing one. Although it obviously is there, it's not visible at the actual cover's default contrast/brightness. I do tweak my scans to make them clearer but I try not to add in detail which isn't visible on the original. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Covers will look different to different people and detail will be hidden or visible depending on the lighting used when viewing the covers. Flourecent lighting will produce different results when compared to incandecent lighting. What may not be visible to one under certain conditions may be visible to others. It's all subjective based on individual perception, environmental conditions and equipment. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,796 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VibroCount: Quote:
I'll most likely get a ton of negative feedback for this -- but my star was taken away during a week when I got a number of positive and two negative flashes, so what do I care?
The community seems to approve scans which:
1) have little grain in the oversaturated reds
2) are so sharpened all edges are nearly neon
3) have contrast set very high (very = extremely)
4) all detail in dark areas is turned to complete black
Just my opinion, just my job (for a few decades) to evaluate scans for reproduction... so what does my opinion matter? I too agree. It is totally impossible to please everybody and the precess has just to many variables. but you should be able get them straight and cropped so its all there. Even the ambient light you watch your screen with can make difference, that's why the scanning program warn about opening the scanner cover. About the best I think you can do is hold the cover up to the screen and get it as close ro the real thing as you can. | | | We don't need stinkin' IMDB's errors, we make our own.
Ineptocracy, You got to love it.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | My point on the dark details seems fairly obvious. When I see a brown tweed sports coat on a cover and the current scan might be a tad light, but the detail is there, and the "new improved" scan shows a detailless black coat, you know there is no real improvement. Often detail in hair is missing in updated scans, easily seen on the DVD cover, yet just a black blob on the "improved" scan.
The over sharpening is easily explained: an overly sharp scan looks impressive. It's inaccurate as all get out, but on a typical monitor, it looks fabulous.
And there must be many monitors whose resolution in the red range is very dim... I see a lot of oversaturated reds, which seem to gather negative comments only if it gets quite grainy.
... I vote no, explaining why; and yet, a few days later, have to lock my scans to avoid getting these abominations in my database... approved (nearly) all... | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff |
|
| Registered: December 19, 2008 | | Posts: 34 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not to be trying to be a smart ass, but what is worng with just trying to reproduce the cover as close as possible to the "original"? It really isn't anybody's job to change the cover. A simple clear scan (or even a good photo) should be enough. I personally don't like covers that have the look of "PHOTOSHOP FROM HELL".... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | That is always my objective, rm and should be everybodys. Some have even taken to removing the crease from the new Book-style BDs, I don't know why, the crease is part of the cover and is plainly visible, just another form of interpretation which i disapprove of.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: September 29, 2008 | | Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rmaginn: Quote:
Not to be trying to be a smart ass, but what is worng with just trying to reproduce the cover as close as possible to the "original"? It really isn't anybody's job to change the cover. A simple clear scan (or even a good photo) should be enough. I personally don't like covers that have the look of "PHOTOSHOP FROM HELL".... I agree that over "photoshopping" a cover image isn't a good thing, but many scanners, including my own tend to give a very bright washed out scan. These don't look anything like the image we see in front of us. This is why I use a program to actually get those true blacks (an example) that are present in the original cover. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what people do to the scan just so long as it looks as close as possible to the actual cover which has always been my goal.  | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire |
|