iTunes 9.1.1 and artwork
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 12 May 2010 23:09 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:54:16 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter > Ceresole) wrote: > > >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Except, of course, that we have previously established that is not the > >> case. We have established the need for file drag-drop since copy-paste > >> often fails to provide a full-res image. > > > >You speak for yourself. In this case the copied image is of excellent > >quality. > > Same here. After pasting into a track, the popup version is at exactly > the same res as the original. The popup version? Erm? Ah! You mean the version you get to see if you click on the artwork pane displayed in the bottom left? I'm looking at the coverflow view. > >But I repeated it your way. Works perfectly in iTunes 9.1.1, just as > >before. Looks very similar too. > > Yes, same here. Not just similar but identical. <puzzled> Could you put a screenshot up on the Web somewhere, so I can see? > >So I still don't know what's going wrong except for your ongoing battle > >with 10.6.3. > > There might be some issue with the size of the original picture - it > is 2136x1188 pixels, and my browser (Firefox) by default scales it to > fit in the browser window. > > That doesn't affect drag'n'drop, or copy'n'paste - either way, the > full res image gets into iTunes. All browsers may not act the same. iTunes shrinks it down quite a bit to fit inside the interface - scaled down to an effective 802 pixels (as best as I can judge, using Graphic Converter and eyeballs); that's down from 1188 square (this is a heavily cropped version I created by way of experiment). Umm. Thing is, I'm viewing it in coverflow view. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Peter Ceresole on 13 May 2010 02:44 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Thing is, I'm viewing it in coverflow view. Well, it might have helped to know that. I never use coverflow, so it may well be different. I just had a look. In fact the image is heavily processed; not surprisingly it is visibly much softer. Rather what you might expect. But when I view the downloaded image in GraphicConverter and in iTunes, on an iG5 screen at 1440x900, the results are absolutely identical, down to the inevitable small artefacts on one spoke at the most critical angle, which I can see if I magnify the image considerably. In other words, the iTunes display is fine. You are talking about an effect of coverflow. -- Peter
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 13 May 2010 06:14 On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:44:15 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> Thing is, I'm viewing it in coverflow view. > >Well, it might have helped to know that. Aye. >I never use coverflow, so it >may well be different. I just had a look. In fact the image is heavily >processed; not surprisingly it is visibly much softer. Rather what you >might expect. And occasionally I find that the initial preview extra-low-res image doesn't ever get updated to the normal res image (or at least not before getting bored and moving on to another image). This happens in Finder's coverflow too, so it seems to be a Coverflow general problem. That doesn't happen to me in iTunes with this particular pic, so it's probably not picture dependent. Cheers - Jaimie -- #include "clue.h"
From: Rowland McDonnell on 14 May 2010 08:37 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: > > >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Thing is, I'm viewing it in coverflow view. > > > >Well, it might have helped to know that. > > Aye. <shrug> It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would be looking at the artwork using the awkward pop-up thingy. I've never seen a use for it and had forgotten that it existed. > >I never use coverflow, so it > >may well be different. I just had a look. In fact the image is heavily > >processed; not surprisingly it is visibly much softer. Rather what you > >might expect. Eh? Why should anyone expect a lower quality image in coverflow? No sane reason at all that I can think of. > And occasionally I find that the initial preview extra-low-res image > doesn't ever get updated to the normal res image (or at least not > before getting bored and moving on to another image). This happens in > Finder's coverflow too, so it seems to be a Coverflow general problem. Surely the two coverflow versions are unrelated except by name? The function is different in each case - iTunes coverflow displays an image that's been attached to the file explicitly, while Finder coverflow displays an image that's worked out on the fly (in the general case). And iTunes does it to show you the album cover (what you might call `human metadata), while the Finder does it to remind you of the file contents (not the metadata at all). The appearance is similar, and the name's the same, but the function is not. Not that I've ever seen a use for Finder coverflow. > That doesn't happen to me in iTunes with this particular pic, so it's > probably not picture dependent. Finder coverflow's doing a different job. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 14 May 2010 08:45
On 2010-05-14, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> >I never use coverflow, so it >> >may well be different. I just had a look. In fact the image is heavily >> >processed; not surprisingly it is visibly much softer. Rather what you >> >might expect. > > Eh? Why should anyone expect a lower quality image in coverflow? No > sane reason at all that I can think of. I'm guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Coverflow does a very, very quick'n'dirty rendering. It's potentially got lots of images to draw and animate on the fly so it needs to keep the processing time for each individual image down as low as it can. Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "[The MP4-12C] will be fitted with all manner of pointlessly shiny buttons that light up and a switch that says 'sport mode' that isn't connected to anything." The Daily Mash. |