My opinion is that the covers are too small.
Personally, I like to have them very large and perhaps larger than most others, and maybe also inconveniently large. But I like to be able to read all the text on a cover.

When I submit covers, they are, for BD's, 2000x23XX pixels. Huge, I know. But then they are still resized to very small pictures. (Locally I keep them at 2000 pixels.)
500x576 seems to be the largest size for BD and around 500x700 for a DVD.
I would like to see an increase of at least 50% but preferably twice that size.
You could then have an option for it. Small size, Standard size, Large size covers.
Back in the day, when we had smaller screens with lower resolution, 500x576 would've been enough.
But things change, as we are aware of.

I know some of you are of the opinion that if you want to see an exact version of a title's cover, you go fetch it in the book shelf.
I'm the opposite. I want to handle my movies as little as possible and doing things from the computer or even on the Android app is preferable to me. To me the DB should reflect reality.

Anyway, I think larger covers would be a nice feature.
On for example Blu-ray.com, there's virtually no limit for cover sizes, so why have it with a software for which you have paid?
Frankly I think Invelos needs to up the game about this issue. And it feels like it was ages ago since we had an upgrade for cover size and quality anyway.

I agree.  I never use the cover art downloaded by DVD Profiler which I consider thumbnail size at best.  The average size is way too small.  It shouldn't be easier to read the physical cover art than what DVD Profiler downloads per a given profile.  The quality is also quite lacking at times despite the smaller size which is just silly.  Half the time people are also scanning the slip cover when in my opinion they should be removing the slip, taking the actual cover art out of the Blu-ray case and scanning it instead.

Considering how critical all other data is handled for a given profile I've personally always been put off by how low the standards have been for cover art submissions.  Cover art is treated as an afterthought in comparison.  It's always been this way.  Perhaps not so much back in the early days of the DVD format, but in this day and age the standards for cover art submissions should be higher.  It doesn't exactly require taking out a second mortage these days to purchase a cheap flatbed scanner and suitable graphics application (...including a quality descreen plugin).  Viewing the cover art for ones collection using the Windows application or mobile apps should at the very least equal that of viewing the actual cover art insofar as readability, image clarity and so forth, a proper digital representation of the actual cover art if you will.

In my case I use my front/back cover images with My Movies as well, not just with DVD Profiler.  My Movies can't hold a candle to DVD Profiler as far as I'm concerned.  My Movies does have higher standards for cover art submissions though and doesn't size them down so drastically once contributed.  I still don't use their cover art, but for those that do the benefit is there.  The real sell for me with My Movies is the fact it can be used to play back your disc or hard drive based media and integrates with Windows Media Center.  That's the only reason I use it. (It in no way replaces DVD Profiler for me.)  It's the front end that I use to browse my Blu-ray collection and initiate playback of a given Blu-ray disc from my Sony Blu-ray changers.  Given that the Blu-ray format uses a resolution of 1920x1080 I run My Movies for WMC7 at that resolution as well.  When displaying a given front/back cover image full screen within My Movies for WMC7 the image is 1034 pixels in height.  As such, I decided from the outset to always go with front/back cover images at that height (...while maintaining the original proportions of course).

The 1034 pixel image height for cover images is equally as accomodating when viewied from my computer (...or mobile devices) as I run with a 1920x1200 desktop.  Whether it's the My Movies Collection Management application or DVD Profiler application, I'm able to view the cover images at their full size as a result without the height exceeding that of my desktop.  The cover art is also far easier to read than the actual cover art per the larger size.  In fact, when viewed from My Movies for WMC7 in my home theater projected at 120 inches diagonal sitting 16 feet back I can read even the smallest of text on a given back cover image.  It's pretty awesome.

That being said, as far as DVD Profiler goes, I think it would be far preferred by most if the standard cover image height used by profiles one can download were more in line with what I"ve gone with (...for both DVD's and Blu-ray's), especially considering how commonplace 1920x1080 to 1920x1200 computer monitors are these days.  Yes, there's the issue of storage space to consider, but it's hardly the early days of the DVD format where hard drive space could only be had at a premium.  Much has changed since this program was first introduced in that regard.  Increasing the average cover image height to what I've suggested would only result in a modest bump in file size.  If the larger size were used I'd also be more inclined to actually contribute (original) cover art for the benefit of others.  The use of "truly" higher quality cover art at a reasonable size can provide a dramatic impact on ones DVD and Blu-ray collection when viewed in the digital realm. (For an example of this see my phpDVDProfiler based website here.)  Any considerations to DVD Profiler improving in this area would be appreciated by many I'm sure.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I guess I am one of the few (if not only) that is perfectly satisfied with the image size in profiler.

I think the current size is a good compromise for the online database.

---------------

I disagree with not scanning slip covers. It's against the rules and also a slip cover may differ quite a lot from the regular cover. About images most often, but sometimes even text.
The point is that it should be easily recognizable.
This is one reason why I think it should be A-OK to create an alternative profile for editions that once had slip covers but then lost them.
For example, there may exist scans of the slip covers, but they are inferior.
No one fixes this and eventually the slip cover is no longer used in the retail market. So it becomes impossible to make decent scans of the slip covers. Etc.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
I think the current size is a good compromise for the online database.

---------------

The problem is that when you add a title to your collection from the online, the cover you get is so tiny.
In my case, it means that I at some point will need to make my own scans.
Like I wrote earlier, I want to be able to read everything on the cover on my PC. Otherwise it could just be tiny thumbs. The covers as they are don't serve much of a purpose.
And as mentioned here, there are issues with resizing a picture. Compression for one thing. Loss in color dynamics, even if minimal.

When I make my own scans, I do it almost in an overkill way.
*800 DPI, scanner drivers (not software ones)
*Adobe RGB for color
*TIFF file format
*Correcting black levels and removing dirt, if any
*Then cropping and resizing and finally save to a JPG, without any kind of loss from the TIFF file

The only thing I don't mess around with is trying to adjust colors, like RGB.
My monitor isn't calibrated either so it might be a lot of work for nothing. That, and I don't have much experience in messing around with RGB matching ("is the cover too green or does it lean more to a blue hue?").

I may be drifting a bit from the topic here, but what I mean to say is that the covers and the quality of them is as crucial as all the typed data in the Invelos DB.
If it's so important that you contribute as accurate covers as possible, it's counter-productive to have them downsized so much so they become mere thumbnails rather than authentic cover art.

Even if people feel differently about larger covers, we should be given the option and alternative.

I have to agree with Gunnar on all counts here. And talk about over exaggeration here... there is no way I would consider what we have here as thumbnail size. Matter of fact I can now read most text on the cover scan at the size it is now. Matter of fact the size it is now fits my entire screen with no problem.

While Ken may agree to increasing the size of cover images... I personally doubt he would do it by much.

Quoting Lowpro:

Quote:
For me it's about being able to enjoy browsing my DVD and Blu-ray collection in the digital realm just as I would standing in front of a bookcase full of DVD and Blu-ray cases if I want.

When I stand in front of my bookcase full of DVD and Blu-ray cases all I see are the spines. 

But OK, I get your point. And it's a fair request, I guess. But like Pete I doubt that Ken will increase the size by much. But I won't complain if he does.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I have to agree with Gunnar on all counts here. And talk about over exaggeration here... there is no way I would consider what we have here as thumbnail size. Matter of fact I can now read most text on the cover scan at the size it is now. Matter of fact the size it is now fits my entire screen with no problem.

While Ken may agree to increasing the size of cover images... I personally doubt he would do it by much.

Over exaggeration?
Excuse me, I'm voicing my opinion here. The covers has been the size they are now for years.
Things happen in the world of computers and computing you know.
I forgot to mention that my two monitors are 1440p and 2160p.
That makes covers even MORE unreadable.
And in fact, DVDProfiler doesn't look good in general in a 4K resolution.
I haven't used the 4K monitor for a while now, so I don't remember if I at all could use DVDProfiler at that resolution, but at least it was a mess trying to get things to look OK.

I definitely think this is something Invelos must consider. Having at least 50% larger covers.
Heck, i could even pay and "upgrade fee" to support addition of server space it would take.

The key word here is that this feature would be optional, not forced onto all users.
It's an upgrade and a step forwards.
No point in trying to find the "absolute truth" here or to reach a consensus.
If people can see the point with having larger covers, that should be enough.

I've said it all the time, but I want to be able to read everything there is on a cover rather than having to go to my bookshelves searching for said disc, pulling it out (it wears on the case to pull them in and out often) and then reading it, having to turn the light on in my room at that. And then I have a stack of movies on my desk. How inconvenient! All this also takes time. And time is to me precious.

Sheesh. Is this really so hard to acknowledge?

If you don't agree with this suggestion, you need only to just speak up. No need to be so adamant about it.

Maybe I should've made a poll to this topic...

My collection is quite large and it is troublesome to have to pull out the actual DVD if I want to look at the cover. And, when I enlarge the current scans on the computer the data becomes blurry and unreadable.

I don't know if invelos' can accommodate this request but I think larger images would be great.