cover art source

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

cover art source

tommycrock
Okay, you've prompted me lixobix

I've been thinking it would be useful to have a flag or two to declare cover art as scanned or 'original digital' (or some better words than these/other choices). For physical releases scans are one of the best ways of knowing you've got the exact same release in your hands. But scans often aren't the best cover art, due to the losses in printing and scanning and resulting moire, poor colour reproduction, never mind dog-eared corners etc.
It seems to me that when original digital artwork is available that closely matches the real item, but maybe a different shape (e.g. square instead of rectangular) or lacks some release specific identifiers (it's a generic version ready to be filled with barcode/label/catno etc.) we should add it for use as cover art but flag it as a digital version, or otherwise have a way people can see the type of artwork they want.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cover art source

lixobix
tommycrock wrote
Okay, you've prompted me lixobix

I've been thinking it would be useful to have a flag or two to declare
cover art as scanned or 'original digital' (or some better words than
these/other choices). For physical releases scans are one of the best ways
of knowing you've got the exact same release in your hands. But scans often
aren't the best cover art, due to the losses in printing and scanning and
resulting moire, poor colour reproduction, never mind dog-eared corners etc.
It seems to me that when original digital artwork is available that closely
matches the real item, but maybe a different shape (e.g. square instead of
rectangular) or lacks some release specific identifiers (it's a generic
version ready to be filled with barcode/label/catno etc.) we should add it
for use as cover art but flag it as a digital version, or otherwise have a
way people can see the type of artwork they want.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Interesting idea. But might that not result in releases having two complete sets of cover art? Could be a bit confusing. Also, how would we ensure that only the desired cover art is downloaded by Picard?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cover art source

tommycrock


On 29 September 2014 16:15, lixobix <[hidden email]> wrote:
tommycrock wrote
> Okay, you've prompted me lixobix
>
> I've been thinking it would be useful to have a flag or two to declare
> cover art as scanned or 'original digital' (or some better words than
> these/other choices). For physical releases scans are one of the best ways
> of knowing you've got the exact same release in your hands. But scans
> often
> aren't the best cover art, due to the losses in printing and scanning and
> resulting moire, poor colour reproduction, never mind dog-eared corners
> etc.
> It seems to me that when original digital artwork is available that
> closely
> matches the real item, but maybe a different shape (e.g. square instead of
> rectangular) or lacks some release specific identifiers (it's a generic
> version ready to be filled with barcode/label/catno etc.) we should add it
> for use as cover art but flag it as a digital version, or otherwise have a
> way people can see the type of artwork they want.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list

> MusicBrainz-users@.musicbrainz

> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

Interesting idea. But might that not result in releases having two complete
sets of cover art? Could be a bit confusing. Also, how would we ensure that
only the desired cover art is downloaded by Picard?

Could do, but I think it'd be rare, it's usually just front art in my experience. I don't think it'd be that confusing. And, I have no idea. I don't use Picard. Is there a choice of cover art when, say, there's a front with sticker and without?

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: cover art source

lixobix
tommycrock wrote
On 29 September 2014 16:15, lixobix <[hidden email]> wrote:

> tommycrock wrote
> > Okay, you've prompted me lixobix
> >
> > I've been thinking it would be useful to have a flag or two to declare
> > cover art as scanned or 'original digital' (or some better words than
> > these/other choices). For physical releases scans are one of the best
> ways
> > of knowing you've got the exact same release in your hands. But scans
> > often
> > aren't the best cover art, due to the losses in printing and scanning and
> > resulting moire, poor colour reproduction, never mind dog-eared corners
> > etc.
> > It seems to me that when original digital artwork is available that
> > closely
> > matches the real item, but maybe a different shape (e.g. square instead
> of
> > rectangular) or lacks some release specific identifiers (it's a generic
> > version ready to be filled with barcode/label/catno etc.) we should add
> it
> > for use as cover art but flag it as a digital version, or otherwise have
> a
> > way people can see the type of artwork they want.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>
> > MusicBrainz-users@.musicbrainz
>
> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>
> Interesting idea. But might that not result in releases having two complete
> sets of cover art? Could be a bit confusing. Also, how would we ensure that
> only the desired cover art is downloaded by Picard?
>
> Could do, but I think it'd be rare, it's usually just front art in my
experience. I don't think it'd be that confusing. And, I have no idea. I
don't use Picard. Is there a choice of cover art when, say, there's a front
with sticker and without?

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Picard downloads all the cover art for the release, although you can exclude certain types. However, it doesn't differentiate secondary, tertiary etc types. So if a release has both "front" and "front, sticker", it will download them as "cover", and "cover(1)", i.e. as two of the same type ("front" is renamed "cover" by Picard). It is not currently possible to set Picard to download only "front" or "front, sticker". If it could, your idea might work better.

If we had "digital" and "scanned" as types, then all could be added to MB, e.g. "front, digital" and "front, scanned". It Picard could then be patched to allow download setting for each secondary, tertiary etc. type, then users could set Picard to download only e.g. "front, digital". The problem with that approach is there are a massive number of possible combinations, as each image file could be a number of types, so there would be a massive list of check boxes. Perhaps that could be avoided by having a scripting function for cover art to set custom preferences, e.g. "exclude all types containing 'scanned'".
Loading...