iTunes 9.1.1 and artwork
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Jim on 15 May 2010 01:11 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > There's no reason for any quality loss that I can see - none at all. Then I suggest that rather than belittling and insulting people here who are trying to explain it to you, you instead file a bug report with Apple. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Woody on 15 May 2010 03:01 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > 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. No it isn't. I am looking at a series of 57 by 57 images in coverflow at at least 400x400. How can that be much less? -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Peter Ceresole on 15 May 2010 03:21 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > If you want to see the cover art of the albums, coverflow is the only > practical method to use. Or so I find. I don't really care about the cover art. Mostly, I just listen to the music. > You claim that the iTunes coverflow display is somehow `not iTunes', and > you also claim that it's not `serious' And now you're simply being ridiculous. There are several ways to display the cover art in iTunes. One of them is by popup, and is very high quality. As you didn't specify the method of display in your original post we faffed about for some time until that became clear. You happen to use coverflow, and it now emerges that in this case the quality of the displayed art is considerably lower. That's all. You ought to be grateful that you are being pointed in the right direction. -- Peter
From: Peter Ceresole on 15 May 2010 12:48 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Peter, it is quite clear that you have decided to ignore my point and > switch to your usual `Let's belittle Rowland by sneering at him' mode - > again. I'm just telling you what I (and others) see. That's what this discussion is about. Any other point you may have made is irrelevant. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 17 May 2010 02:54
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: [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. > > No it isn't. I am looking at a series of 57 by 57 images in coverflow at > at least 400x400. How can that be much less? I do not understand your question. I see images in coverflow in iTunes. Absolutely all of them are lower quality than the original artwork as pasted in to iTunes. I have seen zero exceptions. 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 |