Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
While I understand your desire, it is simply not posiible or financially feasible. I will use my collection as an example. All of my Owned tiotles are scanned at 800DPI.

I said I'd let it drop, but I admit that it irks me a little that several responders seem to assume that I have no clue what I'm asking.
 
I admit that I didn't test PNG files sizes; I know they're larger. They'd be nice, but I originally only asked for larger JPGs.
 
You can see in my post that I very explicitly pointed out that 4x larger resolution JPGs (1024x1433) with very reasonable compression settings not only offer a lot more detail (prettier, crisper) but only take up <300KB each vs. the current <200KB each (500x700 JPGs). I even pointed out that 1 million dvd titles in my ultra-hi resolution would require only about 500GB disk space. That is NOT a lot. And while that's my opinion, the fact is that it's only 50% more than what's currently required, and that's making the bold assumption that every single existing artkwork is re-scanned by someone. The reality is that only new artwork and popular old artwork would get re-scanned, and it would take quite a long time to truly "feel" the impact of ultra-hi.
 
As for bandwidth needs, you have to factor in that total user count is irrelevent. Only paid users get hi-res art, so that's the number that would start consuming higher bandwidth to retrieve the 50% larger image sizes. But users download more than just arwork; they also download a fairly large chunk of text (once you factor in crews and all that extraneous info). So while the artowrk bandwidth goes up 50% for paid users, total bandwidth needs are increased by less than that.
 
I wouldn't have asked for this feature if it was truly unreasonable. Storage and bandwidth costs have gone down more than 33% since the old standard was established.
 
Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
That looks wicked. Can you explain how to do this? (e.g. in an extra thread in "DVD Profiler Online" or per pm)

I am not sure what you mean by explaining. I export my collection to XML using DVD Profiler's standard export feature. I then use a separate Windows application that reads in that data and spits out all the PHP/etc files. And then it uploads (via FTP) the changed files, artwork included, to my website. Are you asking because you want a similar online listing for your collection? i.e. You want my php generation/upload tool?

Even though the current "high resolution" is enough for my iPhone, it isn't for my desktop and iPad, so I make my own scan at a resolution three times higher than the DVDP high res scans.

Doesn't bother me to do it myself but would be nice if DVDP offered higher res on the website. Still, I understand the data transfer concerns... perhaps when DVDPO+ is out?

I try not to get into discussions anymore as they seem to get ugly quick when people do not agree.  I will weigh in on this one though as redscull makes great points.  When I was using my old 19 inch monitor the scans were fine.  When I moved to a 24 inch HDMI compatible monitor with superior video card all of the rules changed.  Cover scans in some cases look pretty good but are not what they could/should be.  I just bought a new 1.5TB Western Digital internal drive for less than $80.00.  If hard disc space is an issue I would be willing to kick in a few extra bucks to help Ken buy a new drive or three.  I however, doubt this to be the reason.  With the evolution of technology in the last 5 years, we have the ability to do so much more.  In my opinion we have the best catalog software available for DVD's.  Unfortunately it means that in some ways we have decided to settle for what is, not what could be.  I am not knocking Ken or the software, but I remember a time when requests were embraced in the forums.  Now, they appear to be a place for, "Great request, this is why it is NOT possible."  Great request redscull you have my vote for better images 100%.

Absolutely agree 100% with the need to up the resolution of images stored in the database. This should be priority #1 for Profiler which I have used and proselytized for years. I'm running at 1680x1050 and the images look unbelievably crappy. The dithering on existing database images is ridiculous. The text is unreadable. My jaw drops when I hear people saying 'what's there now is good enough'. Yes, maybe on a 15" monitor it looks fantastic - but in 2011 it looks like Nintendo 8-bit graphics... dated and old.

The differing opinions are easy to solve. An option for super-high resolution and an option for standard ones (or mobile). Let the user pick.

Is there any news on this feature request?
High-Res images are a must nowadays - at least in my opinion.

Ken, how about commenting on it just once?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Elandril:

Quote:
Ken, how about commenting on it just once?

As a rule, Ken does not comment on feature requests unless/until they are added to the program.

I always thought it was considered to be a guideline (  )

(I'm speaking of graphics here but there are other examples that are not relevant) It's interesting to me the number of people who want higher resolution images because "they are so small" which is only because the resolution of the monitor or device's screen is so large.

I use smaller computer monitors compared to what it seems like everyone else uses and have my 4:3 set to 1024x768 and my 16:9 is set to 1280x720 as opposed to having a monitor twice as large, setting the resolution to 1920x1080 and then wishing that the rest of the Internet would hurry up and increase the size of everything to match. For me, the image size is just right and the size makes sense because 1024x768 -- after a decade -- is still being treated by the majority of sites and [a slowly shrinking number of] software as the resolution standard.


Make the contributed image size standard twice as big and there will be another person asking why it isn't five times larger preparing for the future when we have 80" monitors with resolutions of 16,000x9,000

I basically agree with the statements made by Blair, but the important word in his statement was "Standard", which nowadays more and more gets translated as "Minimum Requirements".

So, while I consider the current picture size to be sufficient, I too have to admit that this can't really be called "Hi-Res" anymore.