iTunes 9.1.1 and artwork
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 14 May 2010 09:39 On 14/05/2010 14:32, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> Jim wrote: >>> 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. >> >> To use the image in coverflow it has to have a geometric transformation >> applied to it in both size and shape. > > Yes, one that is quick and easy to apply via the graphics card, am I > right? You are right, it isn't a speed issue. The loading of the data is normally slower. >> The iTunes artwork window just >> displays the image as it is if it can fit in the screen (which it >> normally can as album artwork is mostly small). > > Album artwork I have was - most of it - meant to be displayed on a 12" > LP sleeve and is therefore mostly large. > > What do you mean when you say album artwork is mostly small? Exactly what I said. Album artwork sold by the iTunes store and AFAIK many other stores (7digital / amazon) is 300x300 pixels. The artwork is stored in the MP3 (where you are using mp3s), so making it large would get rid of the size advantage (especially as it is stored per song, rather than per album). > I use often 1200dpi scans when I scan in my own CD covers, for example > (although I've used 600dpi and 300dpi). > >> The coverflow artwork >> therefore going to seem more compressed, as it is. > > Why should it appear any different to the same image displayed at the > same size by any other app? When stationary, that is? Becasue the coverflow view is a transformation of that image. Even when it is shown flat on, it is the same tranformation as when it is at an angle but with different values. >> And yes, the code that does the coverflow on both finder and iTunes is >> the same, it is a private framework that apple use in ImageKit. > > When you say `does coverflow', you're talking about the code that runs > the imaging on the UI, rather than the code that does the full job. Yes. You give it a lot of images, tell it what point to show and it shows them. > Which machine-based point of view is confusing for those of us who > automatically think of software from the point of view of the user. Sorry about that, to me (as a user) the coverflow in iTunes is the same as the coverflow in the finder, so I think of them the same (although I don't tend to use iTunes coverflow and do use finder coverflow a lot). -- Woody
From: Peter Ceresole on 14 May 2010 12:16 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would be looking at the > artwork using the awkward pop-up thingy Well there you are. I use list view, and it never occured to me that anybody would want to use anything else. Coverflow has never struck me a a serious or practical way of looking though iTunes lists. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 14 May 2010 19:26 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would be looking at the > > artwork using the awkward pop-up thingy > > Well there you are. I use list view, and it never occured to me that > anybody would want to use anything else. Coverflow has never struck me a > a serious or practical way of looking though iTunes lists. Well, there you are. I'm not concerned with what you think is `serious' or `practical' - you only make such judgements so you can put down people who you disagree with, and such behaviour is pretty shitty as far as I'm concerned. But shitty, sneering, bitchy behaviour is all one can expect from you, I've learnt. The iTunes pop-up is the least practical method and to my mind least useful of the available methods for looking at coverart in iTunes. The list view is useless for doing so. If you want to see the cover art of the albums, coverflow is the only practical method to use. Or so I find. You claim that the iTunes coverflow display is somehow `not iTunes', and you also claim that it's not `serious' - the former is a lunatic misunderstanding of software; and the latter is a dishonest underhand sneaking pejoration used as a social sting to belittle someone within a group so as to maintain his position near the bottom of the pecking order. And for that, someone ought to give you a slap. Why, Peter, why can't you behave like a normal decent human being? Why the dribbles of this bitchy, poisonous malice any time you disagree with me, eh? 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: Rowland McDonnell on 14 May 2010 19:28 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: [snip] > It's a shame that you decided to totally ignore my detailled point - but > that's normal for you. Rowland disputes a point with Peter, Peter > ignores the issues Rowland raises, states that Peter is wrong and > Rowland is right (while totally ignoring the point that Rowland made) - [snip] Anyone of normal intelligence will be able to work out where my flying fingers strangely transposed an instance of `Peter' and `Rowland' above. Anyone being silly about this minor mistake can expect to be ignored. 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: Rowland McDonnell on 14 May 2010 19:30
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > > > I use often 1200dpi scans when I scan in my own CD covers, for example > > > (although I've used 600dpi and 300dpi). > > > > > >> The coverflow artwork > > >> therefore going to seem more compressed, as it is. > > > > > > Why should it appear any different to the same image displayed at the > > > same size by any other app? When stationary, that is? > > > > Becasue the coverflow view is a transformation of that image. Even when > > it is shown flat on, it is the same tranformation as when it is at an > > angle but with different values. > > So what? Flat on is a unity transform, or ought to be. And in any > case: so what? > > There's no reason for any quality loss that I can see - none at all. [snip] Moreover: whatever code does the coverflow display in iTunes, whatever methods are applied, the resolution of the displayed images is always much less than the resolution of the original image. There's no need for that, none at all. 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 |