| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Invelos would have to change to make this work.
Invelos would need to put a watermark on the image, once it was accepted into the DB. If a contributed image has that watermark, then it is rejected. If it doesn't have that watermark, then it is assumed to be an original scan.
Charlie |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't believe it should be completely disallowed. Not everyone has a scanner (or may not even want one) to scan the covers themselves.... and if someone out there can make the existing cover look better with some tweaks to it then I for one would be thrilled to see them do it.
What if it isn't better? That is why it goes up for vote. And if the majority of votes thinks it is better... then it should be accepted.
Personally I have a scanner and do my own scans when I feel they need to be updated. But I remember very well what it was like before I got my scanner. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I don't believe it should be completely disallowed. Not everyone has a scanner (or may not even want one) to scan the covers themselves.... and if someone out there can make the existing cover look better with some tweaks to it then I for one would be thrilled to see them do it. This really shouldn't be about making a scan "look better", it should be about contributing scans that look like the cover art. Unfortunately, a lot of people prefer scans that aren't all that accurate. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Maybe I should have worded it a little different... but IMHO the only way an image can look better is if it is closer to what I see when I compare it to the actual case. I just thought that went without saying... obviously I was wrong there. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | That doesn't change the fact that if this can be done with a current image by someone without scanning it themselves... this should be allowed. Not say... "Hey... this isn't your scan... don't do anything to it!" | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 55 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
That doesn't change the fact that if this can be done with a current image by someone without scanning it themselves... this should be allowed. Not say... "Hey... this isn't your scan... don't do anything to it!" In that case someone should post its RAW scan in a forum thread and ask for someone - not unimportant - who has the title too (!), to "correct" it . I just had 4 new covers on the list... 2 new scans and 2 were "corrected" and these 2 i had both to de-select. So another 2 correct cover images are out of the dbase. The new ones look maybe "better"... stronger color, over sharpened lettering. Its like the color settings from the television... stronger many people like but its not natural. In our case.. i would say hold on to the cover itself ! |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Artificial sharpening doesn't really help, but people can color-correct existing scans sometimes. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ArnoBD: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
That doesn't change the fact that if this can be done with a current image by someone without scanning it themselves... this should be allowed. Not say... "Hey... this isn't your scan... don't do anything to it!"
In that case someone should post its RAW scan in a forum thread and ask for someone - not unimportant - who has the title too (!), to "correct" it .
I just had 4 new covers on the list... 2 new scans and 2 were "corrected" and these 2 i had both to de-select. So another 2 correct cover images are out of the dbase.
The new ones look maybe "better"... stronger color, over sharpened lettering.
Its like the color settings from the television... stronger many people like but its not natural.
In our case.. i would say hold on to the cover itself ! What makes you think if they don't have the scanner to scan their own... that they don't have the title? IMHO if someone don't have the title they shouldn't touch the scans because they have nothing to compare it too. What I am against is saying that EVERYONE must scan it themselves to update the image. IF they have the title... see it don't match the cover as it should. But they believe they are able to correct it (making it look more like the cover) without rescanning it... they should be allowed to do so. From there... it is up the the voters to say YES, they agree that it now looks more like the cover or NO, there isn't any/enough improvement to let it go through. Whether they scanned it themselves or edited the current scans shouldn't even come into it. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: September 6, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 124 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ArnoBD: Quote:
For several years now but more and more increasingly are covers "edited" to "improve its quality".
.....
A huge amount of good scans are destroyed by persons who think they find they have improved the pictures.
Maybe they look better on their own monitor or laptop... but to them i say... look on another screen for a change first and see its not improved at all !!!
I understand their good intention but don't do it anymore unless your 100% certain it looks more like the original cover !
..... +1 Lately there have been a lot of covers rescanned so they look better on the "up-graders" monitor. But, they look much worst  on my monitor(s). How the Tinting, Brightness and Contrast look depends on your computer setup. My desktop computer has a high resolution CRT monitor, and laptop has a much lower resolution LCD display. But a lot of the recent "image upgrade contributions" look worst or no better than the existing images on both my computers. I am always very happy  when I see image contributions that actually improve the existing images, and that actually fix "poorly cropped", "blurry", or "replace low resolution scans with higher resolution scans". I wish, people would keep the wholesale (starting with "A" and ending with"Z") rescanning of their collection, for Tinting, Brightness and Contrast" image changes to their own local collections. | | | | Last edited: by zappman |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Why in the world shouldn't they put it through? If they feel it is a better representation of the actual cover scan they have every right in the world to get it into the online database. From there it is up to the voters if they agree or not. I think it is a very awful thing to even try to suggest they shouldn't attempt to put it through and contribute for everyone else.  | | | | Pete |
|
 | Blair | | Resistance is Futile! |
| Registered: October 30, 2008 | | Posts: 1,249 |
| | Posted: | | | | While I assume this topic is based on adjusting images that already exist while the offshoot is about rescanning, I have issues with both that, frankly, will never resolved.
The idea that "better" scans should be added is obvious, but there is one element that I believe gets overlooked: monitor calibration.
What zappman says about resolution is obviously a factor, but I have doubts that, if we took even the monitors of the 10 most-frequent image submitters and 10 most frequent image voters (ignoring that 100 of other people who submit and/or vote) set all of the monitors side by side, and placed the same scanned picture on them, that the picture would look exactly the same on any of them. This alone makes it difficult to expertly decide what scan is "best" when the changes aren't being seen the same way by each person.
And with different sets of people coming and going in the voting process, there isn't any continuity to follow either for replacement scans submitted multiple times. | | | If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you.
He who MUST get the last word in on a pointless, endless argument doesn't win. It makes him the bigger jerk. | | | | Last edited: by Blair |
|
| Registered: March 24, 2012 |  Posts: 42 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Blair: Quote:
The idea that "better" scans should be added is obvious, but there is one element that I believe gets overlooked: monitor calibration.
What zappman says about resolution is obviously a factor, but I have doubts that, if we took even the monitors of the 10 most-frequent image submitters and 10 most frequent image voters (ignoring that 100 of other people who submit and/or vote) set all of the monitors side by side, and placed the same scanned picture on them, that the picture would look exactly the same on any of them. This alone makes it difficult to expertly decide what scan is "best" when the changes aren't being seen the same way by each person. I agree. I only work on a calibrated monitor with a calibrated scanner and have control over the color workflow. One question here however; does the DVD Profiler support the added icc/icm profile? If so, what profiles are supported? I usually scan in Adobe RGB to avoid color compression, but would convert to sRGB, before submitting to the database. Sharpening on an excisting scan in the database is usually pointless because of the low resolution; the image program won't simply have enough information in order to sharpen the image in a good way. The result will normally just be more contrast (sharpening is mainly increasing the contrast along the edges), and more compression artifacts because the image is going through both sharpening and an additional compression cycle. So the best would normally be not to bother with "cosmetic changes" and leave it to somebody else to rescan the cover if you can't do it yourself. | | | | Last edited: by superted |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 756 |
| | Posted: | | | | Both my monitors are calibrated, and I use LR4 & CS4 to handle the scans from my Canon scanner. Most times the workflow is good; but I am still capable of making a right pig's ear of it (no offence intended to those of a porcine persuasion!  ), and when reviewing the work reflect, "now why the fcuk did I do that!"....regrettably, I'm no Dan Margulis!! So if/when I submit scans, they are at full size, corrected & sharpened in CS4 on my calibrated monitors. This is partly out of laziness (I keep full size scans in my local DB), but also because I know that Invelos will resize/rescan/fiddle with the file to better suit the online DB; but I know that I'm giving the online the best possible starting point. | | | | Chris | | | | Last edited: by Mole |
|