Unofficial DVD Profiler Rules Review Forum
« actual dimensions »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jan 1, 2010, 3:32am




Unofficial DVD Profiler Rules Review Forum :: Rules Review :: Cover Images :: actual dimensions
« Page 4 of 4 Jump to page   Go    [Search This Thread][Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
 AuthorTopic: actual dimensions (Read 1,156 times)
hal9g
Member
member is offline

[avatar]

DVDP Rules!

[msn] [aim]

Joined: Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 162
Location: Atlanta, GA USA|1
Karma: 3
 Re: actual dimensions
« Reply #60 on Sept 23, 2006, 9:00am »


Quote:
That seems to a reasonable expansion, xyrano, along the lines of what I was thinking.

Skip


I find it incredible that you are OK with this, Skip, because you obviously do not understand that by combining the two parameters that given above, you are stating that you want the images submitted in a physical size of 5"X7". [image]

One more time, if the image is 500X700 pixels AND the DPI (dots/pixels per inch) is 100dpi then the resulting image is exactly 5"X7" physically!

You are definign the physical size without actually stating it as the physical size, but the result is the same!
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Hal
dvdoug
Universal Moderator
member is offline

[avatar]


[homepage]

Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 251
Location: Essex, UK|12
Karma: 2
 Re: actual dimensions
« Reply #61 on Sept 23, 2006, 9:30am »


Quote:

Quote:


The rules as they stand below are fine IMO.

Things like resizing an image yourself, rather than letting IVS do it don't belong in the rules - they should be in a 'better contributions guide'.
I definitely do not agree that the current rules are fine, further more, I see only beneficial properties of having the dimensions defined in the rules (minimum dpi value and post-processing to premium image properties). Let me be absolutely clear on this. It will give a NON-PREMIUM user an indication on what propeties a image has that do/might exist in the main online database, it will/may also keep a non-premium user from contribute a image with lesser properties than might exist in the main online database.

I would rather have something like:
  • Scanning: Minimal dpi value for scanning a image for contribution to the main online database is: 100dpi.

We have that part already

Quote:
  • Post-processing: Minimal dimensions for an image to contribute to the main online database is: 500x700px (maybe even include a small +- value?)....something like that.

  • We have that part already (scanning a cover at the minimum specified dpi gives those dimensions)


    Quote:
    Besides, if we include something in the vicinity of what I just suggested, it is still up to IVS to reject or accept them, is it not? I do not see the problem! [image]

    A 'better contributions guide'?


    The rules need to define the baseline result for an acceptable contribution. Anything beyond the baseline (e.g. best practice) should not be in the rules.

    1) The image should bigger than existing images (rule)
    2) There isn't a maximum image size you can submit, although images will be resized to a final maximum (rule)

    3) To avoid image quality problems for others, you should resize images to the final maximum (500x700) yourself rather than rely on the automatic proces. (guideline/tip)
    Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
    xyrano
    Member
    member is offline





    Joined: Aug 2006
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 59
    Location: Stockholm, Sweden|2
    Karma: 3
     Re: actual dimensions
    « Reply #62 on Sept 23, 2006, 10:21am »


    Quote:
    That seems to a reasonable expansion, xyrano, along the lines of what I was thinking.

    Skip
    Good :D
    Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
    ya_shin
    Universal Moderator
    member is offline

    [avatar]

    [yim]
    [homepage]

    Joined: Mar 2006
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 781
    Location: Taoyuan, Taiwan|13
    Karma: 2
     Re: actual dimensions
    « Reply #63 on Sept 23, 2006, 10:28am »


    Quote:
    A 'better contributions guide'?


    Could be done via the DVD Profiler Knowledge Base...
    Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

    Achim
    skipnet50
    Member
    member is offline

    [avatar]



    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 227
    Location: US|1
    Karma: -11
     Re: actual dimensions
    « Reply #64 on Sept 23, 2006, 10:34am »

    Hal:

    That is not the way I interpret what Xyrano wrote. He did say minimum, not maximum.

    Skip
    Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
    skipnet50
    Member
    member is offline

    [avatar]



    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 227
    Location: US|1
    Karma: -11
     Re: actual dimensions
    « Reply #65 on Sept 23, 2006, 10:37am »

    I agree with Achim, thgis should be handled via the knowledge Base instead of the rules.

    Skip
    Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
    unicus69
    Universal Moderator
    member is offline

    [avatar]



    Joined: Mar 2006
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 381
    Location: Mars, USA|1
    Karma: 2
     Re: actual dimensions
    « Reply #66 on Sept 23, 2006, 11:42am »


    Quote:
    Either that I have misunderstood the comments of Hax and Hal.


    You have misunderstood because this...


    Quote:
    Xyrano, as far as I can see the current rules are fine with the possible inclusion of making the images 500 pixels wide.


    is exactly what I was talking about.
    Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
    unicus69
    Universal Moderator
    member is offline

    [avatar]



    Joined: Mar 2006
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 381
    Location: Mars, USA|1
    Karma: 2
     Re: actual dimensions
    « Reply #67 on Sept 23, 2006, 11:47am »


    Quote:
    3) To avoid image quality problems for others, you should resize images to the final maximum (500x700) yourself rather than rely on the automatic proces. (guideline/tip)


    Exactly...Thanks Doug. [image] I was beginning to think I was going crazy here. :o
    Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
    tas314
    Member
    member is offline





    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 17
    Location: Canada
    Karma: 0
     Re: actual dimensions
    « Reply #68 on Sept 23, 2006, 12:05pm »

    I think I'll take a shot at this...

    DPI is the wrong measure to use.

    The program uses a 500x700 pixel image. This is a measure of size.
    100 DPI is a measure of quality.

    As long as all DVDs are in standard keep case the result is about the same. But not all DVDs are in a standard keep case.

    If you scan an AniMini (a mini DVD in a small square cardboard sleeve) at 100 DPI the image will be too small.

    If you scan one of the early Japanese LE sets that came in an LD size box it will be WAY too big.

    If you have a box that can't be scanned and have to take a digital photo of it, then DPI will not apply at all!

    DPI should be removed as it only works if the size is constant, a standard keep case.
    ---------------

    Image size must be at least as large as the existing online covers. If you don't have a premium registration, you will be unable to verify this. Therefore, submit only images that have a width of at least 500 pixels OR a hight of at least 700 pixels.
    - a square box should have an image of at least 500 pixels wide.
    - a tall thin box should have an image of at lease 700 pixels high.
    - when scanning a standard keep case a setting of 100 DPI will produce an image of approximately 500 x 700 pixels.

    Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

    Tom.
    « Page 4 of 4 Jump to page   Go    [Search This Thread][Send Topic To Friend] [Print]

    Cover ImagesBoxset icon

    Before submitting new scans of cover art, make sure your new covers are of significantly higher quality than the existing online images, and meet the following criteria:

    Released DVDs

    Pre-releases

    Google
    Webdvdprulesreview.proboards.com
    Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free


    This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
    Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!