| Author |
Message |
| Registered: September 6, 2008 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 124 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks for the tip. Never realized that setting was there. Quoting rdodolak: Quote:
Invelos' compression with reds is not the greatest. What I've had better success with is reducing the image, in a third party program, to the maximum requirements (500x700) and dpi and resubmitting those images to try and avoid the Invelos web site from resizing and compressing the image. Also, make sure the image quality in DVD Profiler is set to 100% (default is 85%) otherwise that will induce issues. You can find this setting, when editing an image in DVD Profiler from the menu bar:
File -> Adjust compression
This will be remembered for all images.
You can then always put back your larger image for your personal database. | | | | Last edited: by zappman |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 |  Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ok Guys,
Resubmitted below that was originally declined. Lets see how we go. Took Rdodolak suggestion and resized it back to 500x700 outside of dvdprofiler so that it doesn't get compressed. See what you think.
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=112585&PageNum=LAST |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,715 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting wazh: Quote:
Ok Guys,
Resubmitted below that was originally declined. Lets see how we go. Took Rdodolak suggestion and resized it back to 500x700 outside of dvdprofiler so that it doesn't get compressed. See what you think.
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=112585&PageNum=LAST Got a little bit of time to take a look at this contribution. I did not vote, since I don't really own this title, but from my point of view the original scan is better. Yes, the new one is sharper, but the existing scan grabs the style of the cover. All newer Star Wars covers have this soft tones and even the printed covers seem to be a little bit out of focus - they are sharp, but they are very soft contrasted. You pulled the contrast far over the edge, which looses many detail in the darker areas and makes the overall impression of the scan too dark and too hard. This is very often a problem with the calibration of the monitor. Maybe you want to check this... If you look at the contrast curves (existing image on the left)...   ... you can see what I mean: the existing scan uses the whole contrast spectrum. It can not be improved by increasing the contrast. The new scan is clearly overcontrasted, which is also shown by the peak in the white area... | | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) | | | | Last edited: by AiAustria |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi,
Strangely enough I didn't do any contrast changes at all in the image. Other than the resize nothing else was changed with the image from the raw scan to the page. It must be something that the scanner program is doing as part of the scan.
Will take a look. |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | In the quest for knowledge..
I have reset the entire scanner program back to defaults and removed any type of filtering going on with the raw scan process.
The new scan is slightly lighter than the old one. See what you think. I have resubmitted a the new updated version
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=112585&PageNum=LAST |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,715 |
| | Posted: | | | | Looks better for me...  The histogram still shows some enhancements, but this time they seem to be symmetric and more subtle... All scanners do some processing. They have to do, since the physical process has to be adjusted to the color scheme of the current computer monitors. The best way to get a feeling for this process is to try different programms to scan the same paperwork. Brightness and contrast are only two aspects. If you look closely, you can see, that the new scan has more green than the existing (the existing back cover tends to red, while the new one tends to a greenish yellow). But to justify on color, you have to get a look on the original paper... But before digging deeper into this issue, you have to know what your monitor displays - you have to calibrate it and remember, where its weak points are. Though I haven't used it personally (I use a commercial product), this seems to be a nice tool to get a grasp on it... | | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) | | | | Last edited: by AiAustria |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks again AiAustria - just loving the info.
Really just shows how much thought I hadn't put into the whole thing.
What program are you using to display the histogram info for the image?
I suppose the bigger question is as well. Is the new update to my previously scanned image that was accepted a worthwhile update?
If the answer is yes - then great. But I suppose if the answer is no then I really need to look at my criteria for taking the trouble to re-scan the images. At least for the Star Wars one then the added disk ID's should be accepted as I forgot them on my original submission 10 years ago. The Star Wars one was a little harder as the Yoda component is a added gloss sticker (or something) placed on the cover to enhance yoda. | | | | Last edited: by wazh |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,715 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting wazh: Quote:
What program are you using to display the histogram info for the image? Every photo editor will do something like that. I use Corel Photo Paint, but more out of being used to it than anything else... Even the free viewer IrfanView can show it -> Ctrl-H... Quote:
I suppose the bigger question is as well. Is the new update to my previously scanned image that was accepted a worthwhile update? You are the only one who can answer this question. That's why my fist post proposed to do it for yourself, if the contribution gets approved, good, if the resulting compressed picture is much better than the existing one even better. But the other users are not the criteria to meet. It is your time and you have to be satisfied. ... and even harder to reach: stay satisfied over the time... • Don't compress the the scans too much (monitors get sharper with every generation) • Don't edit the scans too much (especially the discussed overcontrasting can't be undone and the better your monitor is, the worse the result) • Don't set your limits according to the limitations of DVD Profiler. They are aged and likely to be increased (from my point of view the scans should be oriented on the source material, not limited for the destination) | | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
Every photo editor will do something like that. I use Corel Photo Paint, but more out of being used to it than anything else...
Even the free viewer IrfanView can show it -> Ctrl-H... Many Thanks (was actually Shift-H) Quote:
It is your time and you have to be satisfied. ... and even harder to reach: stay satisfied over the time... I think this is one of things for me as well. Where I look at what I done and how I did it and then go.. geeez I can do that better now as I have got heaps better equipment to do it with. Certainly as I mentioned my criteria for the updates was based on the file size and quality of the actual JPG in the image directory - NOT what was viewing via DVDProfiler. Anyway thanks for all your input. I have learnt a lot and it will certainly change how I do future new releases. However for scanning part of the back catalog I think I am over that now |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | I had an interesting debate/discussion with some work people over this on Friday.
I was explaining to them how great DVDProfiler was and how I was cataloguing all my DVD's and I showed them my collection on the phone.
A couple of Disks didn't have cover artwork and they asked why not (not ones that I had resubmitted).
Then the whole discussion happened. Which I said I was trying to get a better picture on some of the profiles.
So I explained that I was unhappy with some of my original scans and was trying to update them and that they had been rejected - which meant they weren't really better based on what invelos thought. So what is the criteria for being better? It just has to look better.
It did get me thinking that if I am unhappy with my original submission then ultimately invelos's criteria comes into place when I want to replace it. So then it comes down to individuals idea of what is an upgrade and what isn't. This is based on their ideas of what should be better and not mine.
Anyway this isn't for the debate.. Its more that it shows me that everyone has a different idea of what they are looking for in cover scans. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,638 |
| | Posted: | | | | Something else I noticed as well when working with a recent cover that had a lot of red in it. Although, I had the image quality set to 100%, I noticed the program was still compressing the image to the point it looked soft or blurry when compared to the original image.
If you overwrite the image in the file folder the program, at least locally, won't manipulate the image.
..\Documents\DVD Profiler\Databases\Default\Images\ |
|
| Registered: March 30, 2007 | | Posts: 45 |
| | Posted: | | | | That's a very interesting idea - which I had never thought of. I certainly have been looking in that dir to work out what scans really need some work. However I thought that the image that was there would be tied somehow to profiler. Not the thought of replacing the actual image with a rescan.
I can see the ones that I have rescanned though as they are much larger that the default size that has been downloaded. Ones have rescanned sit well over 1000K. Ones that have downloaded from invelos sit about less than 200K.
I was only really targeting on the rescan, ones that sat less or around the 50K mark as I saw the fact that they really didn't have the definition in the picture.
Funny enough "most" of those were originally submitted around 2007 which I suspect people had in their profilers and got resubmitted to invelos as the time of crossover of product. Perhaps original profiler had a different algorithm for picture capture. That information has sort of become part of my requirements as well. That if submitted after 2008 I tended not to touch. |
|