iTunes 9.1.1 and artwork
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 18 May 2010 03:03 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Really? That's odd, that - I thought it was all about the subject of > > this thread which I started, which was all about iTunes's coverflow > > display. > > No it wasn't. You didn't mention coverflow, so a number of us checked > and found that the display was excellent. It was only when you mentioned > coverflow, some way in, that it became clear what you meant. The fact that you mistook my problem due to my mistake does not detract from the fact that the subject was set by me at the start, and it was definitely about the coverflow display - regardless of whether or not I made that clear. 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 18 May 2010 03:15 On 2010-05-18, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: <snip the usual> > Just stick to the question, Jim - but of course, you won't, will you? > You've always got to be annoying, because you like winding me up. I was trying to. So I repeat: file a bug report. 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.
From: Jim on 18 May 2010 03:16 On 2010-05-18, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> >> No it wasn't. You didn't mention coverflow, so a number of us checked >> and found that the display was excellent. It was only when you mentioned >> coverflow, some way in, that it became clear what you meant. > > The fact that you mistook my problem due to my mistake does not detract > from the fact that the subject was set by me at the start, and it was > definitely about the coverflow display - regardless of whether or not I > made that clear. So we're supposed to be telepathic now, are we? 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.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 18 May 2010 03:44 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > [snip the usual] It's a shame that all you can do is totally ignore my points about your bad behaviour, and come out with more snide sneering insults and arrogant unwelcome instructions. You really do need to sort out this bad attitude of yours, Jim. I raised some serious issues with you, and all you could do in response was insult me by dismissing them all with withering contempt! And adding to that insult, you then arrogated to yourself the position of my advisor! What's the matter with you, Jim? 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 18 May 2010 04:02
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > And I still don't understand it. No surprise, given that you've made no > > attempt to explain yourself. > > That is becasue I fail to understand how you can not understand. <sigh> So? So ask me, don't just ignore the fact that I can't understand you! > You claim that the displayed resolution of the displayed image in > coverflow is _always much less than the the resolution of the original > image_ . What I've seen, that applies. > I want to know how you cannot understand that if your original image is > 300x300 pixels and you were displaying it at (say) 500 x 500 pixels you > beleive it could be true. Do you want to know that? Why do you want to know that? You've just asked me that question and I cannot understand it. I cannot understand your question for this reason: I do understand the point you seem to assume I cannot understand. But what I've seen on coverflow is that no matter what the resolution of the original, the coverflow version is worse. /No matter what/. <shrug> Don't ask me what's going on, it's just what I've seen. > > > > Absolutely all of them are lower quality than the original artwork as > > > > pasted in to iTunes. > > > > > > > > I have seen zero exceptions. > > > > > > So? What does your experience have to do with the fact your incorrect > > > assumption that the resolution on coverflow is always lower when it > > > clearly isn't always? > > > > [snip] > > > > When you claim `clearly isn't always', in response to me saying it > > clearly looks that way always to me, I fail to understand your mind. > > That doesn't surprise me. Snide sneering, as per ushual. You just can't leave it out, can you? The nasty little personal niggle put in to wind me up... > I am saying that it is irrelevent that you have not seen any exceptions > as to whether something happens or not. And I am saying I don't know what that means, and I am saying I don't know what the hell you're on about at all. And I am saying that your attitude towards my lack of comprehension is snidely condescending and insultingly unhelpful. > And in this case, anyone who could apply any sort of thought to the > subject would realise that what you claim (that it is always lower > resolution) cannot be true. My case rests, m'lud... Rowland. (wondering why it is that some posters here don't seem able to leave out the personal abuse) -- 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 |