waste of time

[kjetil]

Andrei: I just finished a month ago adding covers to my entire collection! Spent several hours on allmusic, amazon and google...and now this new feature of getting covers automatically :D

So, apart from my wishlist (CREDITS!!!), I have a website suggestion:

A list of things to be implemented/work in progress.

Place it in the beta-page or something, if you don't want it too displayed. So we users can keep up-to-date and look forward to new features (and it will improve beta-testing as the feature will be given consideration and expectations long before we get to test it).

-kjetil (and credits)

[RSF]

Hi Andrei,

As always, and this is what I like most in your database, you keep improving all the time and getting through to our expectations and whishes. :)

But... just one 'tiny' question about Beta 4 improvements!
Does this means that all of our previous image covers in the database will be in a lower quality image than all that I'll get from now on ???

Do I'll have to re-scan all of my thousand and a lot covers ?:'(

Or is just a question of handling and presenting the image and does not have anything to do with the storing process (they're all outside the database!) ???

On that aspect I would agree it was quite a waste of time :( but I still think it's a great improvement!

NOTE: Explaining... Because I wanted the covers to have all of them a specific size, I did not downloaded any and have been scanning them since I have this database (almost a year ago). But as your program converts and renames the jpg files, I have in the meanwhile delete all my scans as they were useless and duplicated used space :'(

[Batman]

I have sort of the same question as RSF. I have all my original album cover scan files though. Should I remove the covers from each album and reload them from my original scans. Or is it like RSF suggested and the inprovements are just program internal?

Batman

[andrei_c]

Does this means that all of our previous image covers in the database will be in a lower quality image than all that I'll get from now on ???

Do I'll have to re-scan all of my thousand and a lot covers ?:'(

Or is just a question of handling and presenting the image and does not have anything to do with the storing process (they're all outside the database!) ???
Hi,

JPEG is lossy format which means whenever you save image in JPEG you already lose some quality. Since OrangeCD uses JPEG to internally store covers, you already lose some small details when you add cover to the database. This is unavoidable, because storing raw images of identical size would take 10x disk space.

The actual quality loss depends on the size of your covers. If they are large enough (more than 300x300), don't bother - the difference will be barely visible. It is easier to see on small covers.

The improvement is that now OrangeCD uses slightly better compression parameters and does not re-encode files if they are already in JPEG format. The change is pretty much internal, I don't recommend you take any action as result of this.

Andrei

[RSF]

Hi Andrei!

Sorry I was so 'rushy' in questioning you yesterday about the covers quality before I even see the improvements :-[

Yes you are right and I almost can't tell the difference, for I already scan them in JPEG format. For the record, I use a 460x456 size (!!!) because for me it's the ideal size to later view the image in full on the right window of OrangeCD, as I use the 800x600 resolution! :)

I strongly 'undo' the "waste of time" comment :-[
OrangeCD is in fact a BETTER EVERY TIME database ;D

[kjetil]

This brings the topic back to what I tried to suggest:

A coming-up-in-orange-list so we can see what Andrei is working on.

I mean, I don't want to cut'n'paste artist info from Allmusic for two months just to see it implemented the day after I am finished!!

This app is never a waste of time otherwise!

[Stardancer]

Just wanna say that this feature is simply gorgeous - something I didn't expect. Which is one of the things I love Orange for. :) I was lazy looking for all those cover images, so it will work super for me. Thanks.