PDA

View Full Version : Populating Cover Art



Kevin Hawkins
2004-03-07, 09:27
I have a large library and would like to add cover art - ideally as a single
jpg file within each album directory. I need to do this is an automated
unattended batch way.

Any suggestions ?

I tried Gotcha Covered but it is proving very problematic/buggy - many
hangs/crashes and very slow. I also tried MediaCentre but although that
works it either places all the files in its own coverart directory and adds
pathnames for coverart to the ID3v2 tags or installs the images directly
within each mp3 track file.

I don't believe that SliMP3 picks up the cover art paths within the ID3V2
files does it ?? It may do but it fails for me as it is a network share - so
the path would be nonsense anyway. Can someone just clarify what my cover
art recognition possibilities are with SliMServer - will it for example pick
up a jpg named album-artist.jpg within the album directory ??

A related problem I use a USB2 connected NTFS formatted 250GB drive for my
music collection on an XP server - different macine to the SlimServer. What
I have found is that the space is none recoverable on this disk. What I mean
is that if I add a 50MB directory say for a new album I lose the space but
when I remove it it doesn't return as free space - even after emptying the
trash - defragmenting the disk or whatever - does anyone know why this would
be ??? Eventually my drive fills and even at that satge the OS fails to do
anything and moans about disk full..

Now the additional problem is that if I add some information to the ID3tags
of my music file I am losing the size of the mp3 file even though I am only
adding a pathname or a small 25K Jpeg file. It seems to cost me the size of
the whole mp3 file each time I update them so even though I have 60 GB free
(180 GB used) I run out of space even though I'm only adding about 3MB of
data for paths or about 1GB for images. Which precludes me from using
either of MediaCentres options...

As an example if I add a small JPEG image my used space goes up by about 50K
but my free space goes down by 6MB or so :-( (the size of the
track)


Kevin

Jack Coates
2004-03-07, 10:40
On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 08:27, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> I have a large library and would like to add cover art - ideally as a single
> jpg file within each album directory. I need to do this is an automated
> unattended batch way.
>
> Any suggestions ?
>

http://slimdevices.com/dev_third_party.html
....
2003-09-01 : Victor Brilon has some neat scripts for adding album art to
music collections.
....

> I don't believe that SliMP3 picks up the cover art paths within the ID3V2
> files does it ?? It may do but it fails for me as it is a network share - so
> the path would be nonsense anyway. Can someone just clarify what my cover
> art recognition possibilities are with SliMServer - will it for example pick
> up a jpg named album-artist.jpg within the album directory ??
>

I thought these tags stored the image, not the pathname to the image? I
think that support for using them is there, but I don't know for sure.

> A related problem I use a USB2 connected NTFS formatted 250GB drive for my
> music collection on an XP server - different macine to the SlimServer. What
> I have found is that the space is none recoverable on this disk. What I mean
> is that if I add a 50MB directory say for a new album I lose the space but
> when I remove it it doesn't return as free space - even after emptying the
> trash - defragmenting the disk or whatever - does anyone know why this would
> be ??? Eventually my drive fills and even at that satge the OS fails to do
> anything and moans about disk full..

That sounds like bad juju. There are some interesting "features" of NTFS
that could produce such behavior, but unless you're trying to use them
you're not likely to run into issues. HPFS-compatibility forks doesn't
ring any bells does it?

I'd guess buggy drivers, is there any vendor-supplied software for
speaking to that drive? If so, quit using it and try to have Windows
pick it up directly.

>
> Now the additional problem is that if I add some information to the ID3tags
> of my music file I am losing the size of the mp3 file even though I am only
> adding a pathname or a small 25K Jpeg file. It seems to cost me the size of
> the whole mp3 file each time I update them so even though I have 60 GB free
> (180 GB used) I run out of space even though I'm only adding about 3MB of
> data for paths or about 1GB for images. Which precludes me from using
> either of MediaCentres options...
>
> As an example if I add a small JPEG image my used space goes up by about 50K
> but my free space goes down by 6MB or so :-( (the size of the
> track)
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>

Pat Farrell
2004-03-07, 11:07
At 11:27 AM 3/7/2004, you wrote:
>I have a large library and would like to add cover art - ideally as a single
>jpg file within each album directory. I need to do this is an automated
>unattended batch way.

I wrote one,
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimsoftware.html
there are others on the Slim third party list.

Mine grabs the images and puts them in the same directory as
the songs. It does not change the tags in your MP3/ogg/flac files.


>I don't believe that SliMP3 picks up the cover art paths within the ID3V2
>files does it ?? It may do but it fails for me as it is a network share - so
>the path would be nonsense anyway. Can someone just clarify what my cover
>art recognition possibilities are with SliMServer - will it for example pick
>up a jpg named album-artist.jpg within the album directory ??

I'm not an expert on it, but it will display artwork specifed in the ID3 V2
tag of an MP3 file.

Or it will look for specific file names in the music directory and apply
the art in those files to the directory.

I'm not sure what the SlimServer does for different tunes in a single
directory,
clearly you'd want differnt art. I just don't have any example of that in my
collection.

Here is some more that may help.


The SlimServer can display artwork associated with each album. This "cover
art" is typically a copy of the CD/album's cover.

Artwork is displayed in several places within the SlimServer Web interface.
The details of the display vary depending on the skin currently being used.
The "Default", "Fishbone," and "Moser" skins have browse by cover art
functions, clicking on a picture of the CD/album will select the album for
playing or processing. The "Fishbone" skin also displays the cover art in
the status display as the songs are played.


What is Artwork, how does the SlimServer use it?

Artwork is cover art from CD albums. It is displayed both to beautify the
SlimServer interface, and in the "Browse by artwork" section to specify
which albums are selected for playing or processing.


How do I get cover art?

We do not provide cover art. Many sites that sell CDs include cover art in
their catalog. With most browsers, you can right click on the image and
select "Save image as..."

Several third party developers have written utilities to automatically
retreive cover art based on the internal tags of your MP3, Ogg, Flac, or
other files. See
<http://www.slimdevices.com/dev_third_party.html>http://www.slimdevices.com/dev_third_party.html
for more information.


Graphic file requirements

The SlimServer will display any graphic file that your browser can support.
Nearly all browsers support .GIF and .JPG files, so most SlimDevices
customers use one of these file formats.

Image sizes

The image files should be modest in size, as they are sized to fit on the
HTML browser window. There is no reason to have images larger than 300x300
pixels, they won't be displayed with that size, and it simply takes up
space and bandwidth.

There are two file sizes in use in the current skins. One image is used
when you select tracks from an album, the image size should be about
300x300 pixels. A second image is used as a "thumbnail" in the
browse-by-coverart, and is displayed in the status pane of the Fishbone
skin. This image should be no larger than 100x100.


Technical details

For each place in the skin that references a large cover art image, the
SlimServer software performs the following search:
* Seach in the current music directory for cover.jpg, then
albumartsmall.jpg, folder.jpg, album.jpg, thumb.jpg
* If needed seach for cover.gif, then albumartsmall.gif, folder.gif,
album.gif, thumb.gif

The SlimServer will use the first image file located in this search. For
the smaller, thumbnail image, a similar search is performed, except that
the list is reversed, searching for thumb first. Specifically:
* Seach in the current music directory for thumb.jpg album.jpg,
folder.jpg, albumartsmall.jpg, cover.jpg,
* If needed seach for thumb.gif album.gif, folder.gif,
albumartsmall.gif, cover.gif,
Artwork internal to the ID3 tags within a song takes precedence, followed
by any specified filename in the server settings. In the Thumbnail
selection, the Server reverses the search list so that thumb is found
before cover. This way, you can have a set of large images and a set of
small ones.

Browse by artwork and status BOTH scale the same image file found for
Thumb. By default, the browse by artwork contrains to 100x100, while the
status contrains to 100 leaving aspect ratio intact.

kdf
2004-03-07, 12:39
Quoting Pat Farrell <pfarrell (AT) pfarrell (DOT) com>:

> At 11:27 AM 3/7/2004, you wrote:
> >I have a large library and would like to add cover art - ideally as a
> single
> >jpg file within each album directory. I need to do this is an automated
> >unattended batch way.
>
> I wrote one,
> http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimsoftware.html
> there are others on the Slim third party list.
>
> Mine grabs the images and puts them in the same directory as
> the songs. It does not change the tags in your MP3/ogg/flac files.
>
>
> >I don't believe that SliMP3 picks up the cover art paths within the ID3V2
> >files does it ?? It may do but it fails for me as it is a network share -
> so
> >the path would be nonsense anyway. Can someone just clarify what my cover
> >art recognition possibilities are with SliMServer - will it for example
> pick
> >up a jpg named album-artist.jpg within the album directory ??
>
> I'm not an expert on it, but it will display artwork specifed in the ID3 V2
> tag of an MP3 file.

That is correct. SlimServer will look for ID3v1 and ID3v2.3 PIC and APIC tags
for image data. This can be jpg, gif, or png formatted. I'm not aware of any
spec that embeds pathnames. Slimserver only loks for image data, not for
embedded pathnames.

> Or it will look for specific file names in the music directory and apply
> the art in those files to the directory.
>
> I'm not sure what the SlimServer does for different tunes in a single
> directory,
> clearly you'd want differnt art. I just don't have any example of that in my
> collection.

Slimserver looks in the same path as the song, thus you would be looking for the
same artfile in this case. However there is an option in Server Settings,
Additional, Interface for setting filenames for Artwork and Artwork Thumbnail.
You can enter a specific filename if you use something not found in the list
(eg, artwork.jpg). You may also create filenames based on song variables. If
your first character is %, the server then parses the rest of the string as an
InfoFormat, the same as title format is created:

Available data elements are: CT (content type), TITLE, GENRE, TRACKNUM
(tracknumber as an int), FS (file size), ARTIST, ALBUM, COMMENT, YEAR, SECS
(total seconds), DURATION (minutes and seconds), VBR_SCALE (vbr/cbr), BITRATE,
TAGSIZE, VOLUME (volume name), PATH, FILE, EXT (file extension), LONGDATE
(current date, long), SHORTDATE (current date, short), CURRTIME(current time).
Elements can be separated by anything (or nothing). The separators are only used
if the data elements are present.

As an example, you could create a single directory of songs and name all your
artwork as artist-album.jpg. For this, enter a setting of %ARTIST-ALBUM.jpg for
Artwork or Artwork Thumbnail.

The rest of the info, you alreayd have from Pat.

-kdf

Bryce Richards
2004-03-07, 16:41
Pat,

I've grabbed your script and it runs, but errors out. Don't know what
the error means.

Here's my ~/musicutil.conf:

root@MidwestProject:~# more musicutil.conf
AmazonAffiliateID=webservices-20
AmazonDeveloperID=D6CF7IOTTSGR2
ProxyWanted=true

What can you tell me about this output:

root@MidwestProject:~# java com.pfarrell.utils.music.AmazonTest Devo
Mar 7, 2004 6:39:23 PM com.pfarrell.utils.net.SocketTools
getSocketProxyFixup
SEVERE: SocketTools:can't talk to socket
java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketConnect(Native Method)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.doConnect(PlainSocketImpl .java:305)
at
java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connectToAddress(PlainSoc ketImpl.java:171)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(PlainSocketImpl.j ava:158)
at java.net.Socket.connect(Socket.java:452)
at java.net.Socket.connect(Socket.java:402)
at java.net.Socket.<init>(Socket.java:309)
at java.net.Socket.<init>(Socket.java:124)
at
com.pfarrell.utils.net.SocketTools.getSocketForUrl (SocketTools.java:85)
at
com.pfarrell.utils.net.SocketTools.getSocketProxyF ixup(SocketTools.java:43)
at com.pfarrell.utils.net.FetchURL.<init>(FetchURL.java:79)
at
com.pfarrell.utils.music.AmazonCovers.obtainUrls(A mazonCovers.java:96)
at com.pfarrell.utils.music.AmazonTest.main(AmazonTes t.java:64)
java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketConnect(Native Method)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.doConnect(PlainSocketImpl .java:305)
at
java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connectToAddress(PlainSoc ketImpl.java:171)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(PlainSocketImpl.j ava:158)
at java.net.Socket.connect(Socket.java:452)
at java.net.Socket.connect(Socket.java:402)
at java.net.Socket.<init>(Socket.java:309)
at java.net.Socket.<init>(Socket.java:124)
at
com.pfarrell.utils.net.SocketTools.getSocketForUrl (SocketTools.java:85)
at
com.pfarrell.utils.net.SocketTools.getSocketProxyF ixup(SocketTools.java:43)
at com.pfarrell.utils.net.FetchURL.<init>(FetchURL.java:79)
at
com.pfarrell.utils.music.AmazonCovers.obtainUrls(A mazonCovers.java:96)
at com.pfarrell.utils.music.AmazonTest.main(AmazonTes t.java:64)
no matching records found at Amazon.com

Thanks for your time,

Bryce.



Pat Farrell wrote:

> At 11:27 AM 3/7/2004, you wrote:
>
>> I have a large library and would like to add cover art - ideally as a
>> single
>> jpg file within each album directory. I need to do this is an automated
>> unattended batch way.
>
>
> I wrote one,
> http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimsoftware.html
> there are others on the Slim third party list.
>
> Mine grabs the images and puts them in the same directory as
> the songs. It does not change the tags in your MP3/ogg/flac files.
>
>
>> I don't believe that SliMP3 picks up the cover art paths within the ID3V2
>> files does it ?? It may do but it fails for me as it is a network
>> share - so
>> the path would be nonsense anyway. Can someone just clarify what my cover
>> art recognition possibilities are with SliMServer - will it for
>> example pick
>> up a jpg named album-artist.jpg within the album directory ??
>
>
> I'm not an expert on it, but it will display artwork specifed in the
> ID3 V2
> tag of an MP3 file.
>
> Or it will look for specific file names in the music directory and apply
> the art in those files to the directory.
>
> I'm not sure what the SlimServer does for different tunes in a single
> directory,
> clearly you'd want differnt art. I just don't have any example of that
> in my
> collection.
>
> Here is some more that may help.
>
>
> The SlimServer can display artwork associated with each album. This
> "cover art" is typically a copy of the CD/album's cover.
>
> Artwork is displayed in several places within the SlimServer Web
> interface. The details of the display vary depending on the skin
> currently being used. The "Default", "Fishbone," and "Moser" skins
> have browse by cover art functions, clicking on a picture of the
> CD/album will select the album for playing or processing. The
> "Fishbone" skin also displays the cover art in the status display as
> the songs are played.
>
>
> *What is Artwork, how does the SlimServer use it?*
>
> Artwork is cover art from CD albums. It is displayed both to beautify
> the SlimServer interface, and in the "Browse by artwork" section to
> specify which albums are selected for playing or processing.
>
>
> *How do I get cover art?*
>
> We do not provide cover art. Many sites that sell CDs include cover
> art in their catalog. With most browsers, you can right click on the
> image and select "Save image as..."
>
> Several third party developers have written utilities to automatically
> retreive cover art based on the internal tags of your MP3, Ogg, Flac,
> or other files. See http://www.slimdevices.com/dev_third_party.html
> for more information.
>
>
> *Graphic file requirements*
>
> The SlimServer will display any graphic file that your browser can
> support. Nearly all browsers support .GIF and .JPG files, so most
> SlimDevices customers use one of these file formats.
>
>
> *Image sizes*
>
> The image files should be modest in size, as they are sized to fit on
> the HTML browser window. There is no reason to have images larger than
> 300x300 pixels, they won't be displayed with that size, and it simply
> takes up space and bandwidth.
>
> There are two file sizes in use in the current skins. One image is
> used when you select tracks from an album, the image size should be
> about 300x300 pixels. A second image is used as a "thumbnail" in the
> browse-by-coverart, and is displayed in the status pane of the
> Fishbone skin. This image should be no larger than 100x100.
>
>
> *Technical details*
>
> For each place in the skin that references a large cover art image,
> the SlimServer software performs the following search:
>
> 1. Seach in the current music directory for cover.jpg, then
> albumartsmall.jpg, folder.jpg, album.jpg, thumb.jpg
> 2. If needed seach for cover.gif, then albumartsmall.gif,
> folder.gif, album.gif, thumb.gif
>
>
> The SlimServer will use the first image file located in this search.
> For the smaller, thumbnail image, a similar search is performed,
> except that the list is reversed, searching for thumb first.
> Specifically:
>
> 1. Seach in the current music directory for thumb.jpg album.jpg,
> folder.jpg, albumartsmall.jpg, cover.jpg,
> 2. If needed seach for thumb.gif album.gif, folder.gif,
> albumartsmall.gif, cover.gif,
>
> Artwork internal to the ID3 tags within a song takes precedence,
> followed by any specified filename in the server settings. In the
> Thumbnail selection, the Server reverses the search list so that thumb
> is found before cover. This way, you can have a set of large images
> and a set of small ones.
>
> Browse by artwork and status BOTH scale the same image file found for
> Thumb. By default, the browse by artwork contrains to 100x100, while
> the status contrains to 100 leaving aspect ratio intact.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Pat Farrell
2004-03-07, 17:19
At 06:41 PM 3/7/2004, Bryce Richards wrote:

>root@MidwestProject:~# more musicutil.conf
>AmazonAffiliateID=webservices-20
>AmazonDeveloperID=D6XYZZYGR2
>ProxyWanted=true

Then you have to have a proxy that listens on port 9000 of localhost.


>What can you tell me about this output:
>SEVERE: SocketTools:can't talk to socket
>java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused

That you don't have a proxy that it wants.
Most likely you want to set it to false.

We may want to do serious debugging off list.

Thanks
Pat

pfarrell @ pfarrell dot com

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-03-08, 17:57
On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 13:07, Pat Farrell wrote:

> Image sizes
> The image files should be modest in size, as they are sized to fit on
> the HTML browser window. There is no reason to have images larger than
> 300x300 pixels, they won't be displayed with that size, and it simply
> takes up space and bandwidth.

Been thinking about that before I launch into a wholesale munge of my
artwork. I use the Fishbone skin pretty much exclusively. The status
panel constrains art height to 100 pixels. The 'browse music folder'
frame constrains width to 150 pixels. But the 'browse albums' frame
sets width to 100%, no pixel constraints at all (verified with 'view
frame source'). From experience, Firefox will scale whatever image is
available to fit that 100%. And at 1280x1024, if it happens to be one of
those 50x50 thumbs (Amazon didn't always have large artwork), the result
is so fugly that I bought a scanner. Scaling a 300x300 jpg up to half
my screen width isn't likely to look much better.

Therefore: why the suggestion of 300x300 for the large art? Do other
browsers get different HTML? I can see making a thumb run (but probably
thumbing to 150x150 so all the browser scaling will be down). And I can
see scaling some of my scans down. I just checked, and most are around
2800^2, but I think I'd rather have 'em around 700 sq. so the image
quality will be up there when they're shown big on the album pages.
With this screen res on my LCD, that's almost an actual-size art
display.

For the curious, I've been scanning at 450 DPI into the gimp, bringing
brightness and contrast up to around 70-75 and running despeckle radius
3, black 7, white 248, no adaptive or recursive. Some covers still
retain a bit of moire in places, but I'm working on my recipe. For the
most part, they look really good.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's!
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

kdf
2004-03-08, 18:21
Quoting "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com>:

> On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 13:07, Pat Farrell wrote:
>
> > Image sizes
> > The image files should be modest in size, as they are sized to fit on
> > the HTML browser window. There is no reason to have images larger than
> > 300x300 pixels, they won't be displayed with that size, and it simply
> > takes up space and bandwidth.
>
> Been thinking about that before I launch into a wholesale munge of my
> artwork. I use the Fishbone skin pretty much exclusively. The status
> panel constrains art height to 100 pixels. The 'browse music folder'
> frame constrains width to 150 pixels. But the 'browse albums' frame
> sets width to 100%, no pixel constraints at all (verified with 'view
> frame source').

Don't count on a single skin for a spec on how to make cover art. The 100% scae
in Fishbone was an experiment after a couple users wanted a larger way to see
their 1M images. It doesn't even work for my own set of images. I think the
artwork does need a constraint, otherwise large images will explode the window,
but I'm thinking something around 200-250 for the browse by album, and songinfo.
Browse by artwork is sizeable by preference and only needs 1:1 aspect ratio
contraint. Status requires 100x100 due to layout contraints. This is partly
why the default browse by artwork is 100x100. Default skin, I believe uses
100x100 and 150x150. In all skins, the default browse by artwork size is 100x100.

Until only recently, no one has even mentioned a case of using two different
sizes, so most artwork has been one size, one file for both. There are so many
ways to either grab cover art or scan cover art, so its hard to suggest a
defined size. Any skin could be modified, or future skins created to have
images of any size. The basic idea is that the server has two images so that
you can optimise for a larger and a smaller image. The Fishbone skin is
designed to choose the smaller image when the image size is expected to be
small(ish) and the larger size when something bigger is used. I added the 100%
scal to try out an option that lets large images show up as large as you can
fit. However, in hindsight, this is probably done better as a link from teh
image itself. Viewed as a contrained image of 200x200, for greatest fit at
common screen resolutions. Then this image could link to a full size version
(like Standard skin). As much as I would like, the average person just doesnt
run at 1600x1200.

A note on the Status section of the Fishbone skin, I have considered making them
sized along with the browse by artwork size pref, but only sizes smaller than
100 work. Larger than 100, then you start to lose the shuffle and repeat
buttons. If frames could be resized more easily, then I'd be all for it, but
they can't. For users without artwork, the frames shift to make better use of
the space, but its a simple shift between two known sizes.

To be frank, I think there is a definate niche for a skin that is designed from
the ground up with a focus on artwork. Currently, the only real sizes you would
need for existing skins would be 100x100 and a large version that hopefuly wont
get out of hand when its unscaled in the Standard skin. But, there is room to
improve on this if there is a better way.

-kdf

Pat Farrell
2004-03-08, 19:13
At 07:57 PM 3/8/2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
>On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 13:07, Pat Farrell wrote:
> > the HTML browser window. There is no reason to have images larger than
> > 300x300 pixels, they won't be displayed with that size, and it simply
>Therefore: why the suggestion of 300x300 for the large art?

Seemed like a good idea at the time.
It works reasonably well for me, on the laptop that I
have in the living room where the main stereo is.

Plus, that is the size of the large image from Amazon.

Plus, while the size is a personal choice, there
are downsides to having it be too large.
a 300x300x24 pixel image, after compression
with jpg is about 21kb. Having really big images
could take up valuable network bandwidth better
used for audio.


>2800^2, but I think I'd rather have 'em around 700 sq. so the image

By all means, do it the way you like.

None of the skins are really artwork friendly, or at least
none seem to be designed with artwork as their primary
component. Sizing is all over the map. It probably has to
be, because what looks right on my main 1600x1400 screen
will look dumb on my SVGA laptop, and will surely look
really dumb on the PDA I'm getting next as a remote control.


>For the curious, I've been scanning at 450 DPI into the gimp, bringing
>brightness and contrast up to around 70-75 and running despeckle radius
>3, black 7, white 248, no adaptive or recursive. Some covers still
>retain a bit of moire in places, but I'm working on my recipe. For the
>most part, they look really good.

450 DPI for display on a CRT? Most CRTs are only about 100 DPI
I'm sure they look good, and if you have the network bandwidth, go for it.
I'm much too lazy to run my CD covers thru a real scanner --
even if/tho that is probably less work that I've spend on
automating the retrieval from amazon.

Pat

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-03-08, 19:18
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 20:21, kdf wrote:
> Quoting "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com>:

> > Been thinking about that before I launch into a wholesale munge of my
> > artwork. I use the Fishbone skin pretty much exclusively. The status
> > panel constrains art height to 100 pixels. The 'browse music folder'
> > frame constrains width to 150 pixels. But the 'browse albums' frame
> > sets width to 100%, no pixel constraints at all (verified with 'view
> > frame source').
>
> Don't count on a single skin for a spec on how to make cover art.

[One quick trip into the Standard skin later]

"That was 'orrible!" (for 5 points, name that sketch)

Yep, see what you mean. Standard doesn't constrain, and my images are
all over the map, size-wise. Man, those 2800 sq are way outta hand!
But looking at the native 300 sq images, they're not as bad as I was
thinking they would be at 1:1, and much better than upscaled to full
column width.

> I added the 100%
> scal to try out an option that lets large images show up as large as you can
> fit. However, in hindsight, this is probably done better as a link from teh
> image itself. Viewed as a contrained image of 200x200, for greatest fit at
> common screen resolutions. Then this image could link to a full size version
> (like Standard skin). As much as I would like, the average person just doesnt
> run at 1600x1200.

Well, let me know when you start handing out the 21" LCDs and I'll be
first in line! :) 'Til then, I have to be content with 1280x1024.
Still, I bet there are a lot of 1024x768 desktops still out there.
Hell, I have a 17" CRT at work and I can only get 1024x768 on it. (now,
the 21" Trinitron I had 3 jobs ago... that was different)

> A note on the Status section of the Fishbone skin, I have considered making them
> sized along with the browse by artwork size pref, but only sizes smaller than
> 100 work. Larger than 100, then you start to lose the shuffle and repeat
> buttons. If frames could be resized more easily, then I'd be all for it, but
> they can't.

That's my biggest peeve about frames. They *almost* do what you need.
It's like CSS. You can get a very nice proportional-width three-column
layout, but you need to use consecutive <div>s. If you want to move
columns around by CSS Fu alone, they have to be fixed-width and
absolutely positioned. (if someone has a solution for that one, please
mail me!)

> To be frank, I think there is a definate niche for a skin that is designed from
> the ground up with a focus on artwork. Currently, the only real sizes you would
> need for existing skins would be 100x100 and a large version that hopefuly wont
> get out of hand when its unscaled in the Standard skin. But, there is room to
> improve on this if there is a better way.

I futzed around with some javascript to autocalculate scaling once, but
had a hell of a time getting acess to the viewport dimensions across
browsers. IE lives in it's own dimension... literally. (psst... hey,
Microsoft: in CSS, the margin is *inside* the box and the border is
*outside*)
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's!
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-03-08, 20:14
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 21:13, Pat Farrell wrote:

> Seemed like a good idea at the time.
> It works reasonably well for me, on the laptop that I
> have in the living room where the main stereo is.
>
> Plus, that is the size of the large image from Amazon.

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm just your average gadget-happy geek that
thinks his machine is the only one in the world, and I wanted to make
sure I hadn't left Gumperson's Constant out of the formula. :)

Seriously, though, that's why I like to get input before launching off
into something. After looking at some 300 sq. images, I think that's
the better way to go. They'll still fit my laptop screen, but aren't
impossibly tiny on the LCD.


> 450 DPI for display on a CRT? Most CRTs are only about 100 DPI

It's an LCD, but I'm not sure of the DPI. Thig is, at lower
resolutions, I was getting really terrible aliasing from the halftone
effect of 4-color litho. But SANE locks up with my scanner at 600 DPI,
so 450 is as high as I could go. After reduction and despeckling, they
look almost as good on screen as in the jewel case.

> I'm sure they look good, and if you have the network bandwidth, go for
> it.

Well, for now SlimServer is running on the same machine, so bandwidth
isn't yet a factor. I'm going to build a dedicated server as soon as I
can scrape up some more RAM. The only built-out spare I have now only
has 96 MB in it.

> I'm much too lazy to run my CD covers thru a real scanner --
> even if/tho that is probably less work that I've spend on
> automating the retrieval from amazon.

I don't know about the "less work" part. It takes a good 6 to 8 minutes
to get a good scan, doctor and scale it. The upside is I never get
stuck with a 20% Off overlay. :->
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's!
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

Pat Farrell
2004-03-08, 20:33
At 10:14 PM 3/8/2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 21:13, Pat Farrell wrote:
> > Seemed like a good idea at the time.
>It's an LCD, but I'm not sure of the DPI. Thig is, at lower
>resolutions, I was getting really terrible aliasing from the halftone
>effect of 4-color litho.

So what you need are some LCDs with real half tone pixels :-)
I can see how the aliasing and moire patterns could drive you crazy.

>Well, for now SlimServer is running on the same machine, so bandwidth
>isn't yet a factor. I'm going to build a dedicated server as soon as I
>can scrape up some more RAM. The only built-out spare I have now only
>has 96 MB in it.

More ram, lots of disks, your favorite Linux distro and you'll be all set.
Mine is only a 500 mhz box, I think I need a little more CPU, as
I get occasional dropout streaming FLAC, I think during rescans.

>I don't know about the "less work" part. It takes a good 6 to 8 minutes
>to get a good scan, doctor and scale it. The upside is I never get
>stuck with a 20% Off overlay. :->

Less work than writing code and reading RFCs?
At least the code will do three hundred CDs at one shot
without complaining.

Do you scan the whole card? all four sides, or the whole booklet
with lyrics and engineer and all that stuff? How about the
back card (j-card?) of the jewel case?

Pat

Pat Farrell
2004-03-08, 21:09
At 09:18 PM 3/8/2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> > If frames could be resized more easily, then I'd be all for it, but
> > they can't.
>
>That's my biggest peeve about frames. They *almost* do what you need.

Frames are a crock.
They were a stopgap put in by Netscape in version 2, and barely
worked then. Microsoft added iframes somewhere arround IE4,
and they are much closer to what you want a frame to do, but
the old "installed base" problem gets in the way.

Sadly, FireFox does not support iframes well. At least not
in 0.8.

Since a coverart skin is going to be highly graphics intensive, and
will really want lots of things that work like frames, and
since we probably want to write only one version of the source
for all known browsers, I'm stuck. Sigh.

I assume that telling the users to all change over to FireFox
is no more acceptable now than it was back in 1996, when
FireFox had earlier names.

Pat

Jack Coates
2004-03-08, 22:29
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 16:57, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> ...frame source'). From experience, Firefox will scale whatever image is
> available to fit that 100%. And at 1280x1024, if it happens to be one of
....

FWIW, that scaling can be turned off.
--
Jack at Monkeynoodle Dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
************************************************** ********************
* "We knocked another couple back, The dead soldiers lined up on *
* the table still prepared for an attack, they didn't know they'd *
* been disabled." *
* Baby Britain from XO by Elliott Smith *
************************************************** ********************

Jack Coates
2004-03-08, 22:35
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 20:09, Pat Farrell wrote:
> At 09:18 PM 3/8/2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> > > If frames could be resized more easily, then I'd be all for it,
> > but
> > > they can't.
> >
> > That's my biggest peeve about frames. They *almost* do what you
> > need.
>
> Frames are a crock.
> They were a stopgap put in by Netscape in version 2, and barely
> worked then. Microsoft added iframes somewhere arround IE4,
> and they are much closer to what you want a frame to do, but
> the old "installed base" problem gets in the way.
>
> Sadly, FireFox does not support iframes well. At least not
> in 0.8.

Hm, I wouldn't say iframes are very good for much of anything, though
firefox does support my limited usage of them in places where they're
the only way to get what I want.

> Since a coverart skin is going to be highly graphics intensive, and
> will really want lots of things that work like frames, and
> since we probably want to write only one version of the source
> for all known browsers, I'm stuck. Sigh.
>
> I assume that telling the users to all change over to FireFox
> is no more acceptable now than it was back in 1996, when
> FireFox had earlier names.
>

If it was, writing JavaScript would be much, much easier. (Here's a hint
Microsoft, OnChange() means when the form element changes, not when SOME
OTHER form element gets clicked.) For that matter, writing HTML would be
easier. (Another hint, MS, grey and gray mean the same thing. Grey does
not mean green.)

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle Dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
************************************************** ********************
* "Do something for me boys, if I should die at sea boys, write a *
* little note boys, set it off afloat, saying 'Bless you bless you *
* all of you pretty girls, village and city girls by the quayside, *
* bless you bless you all of you pretty girls watching and waiting *
* by the sea.'" *
* --All You Pretty Girls from The Big Express by XTC *
************************************************** ********************

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-03-09, 04:32
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 22:33, Pat Farrell wrote:

> Do you scan the whole card? all four sides, or the whole booklet
> with lyrics and engineer and all that stuff? How about the
> back card (j-card?) of the jewel case?

I'm not quite that dedicated. Just the front cover art (and I'm sure I
could get the time down if I trained real hard).
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's!
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-03-09, 04:37
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 00:29, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 16:57, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> > ...frame source'). From experience, Firefox will scale whatever image is
> > available to fit that 100%. And at 1280x1024, if it happens to be one of
> ...
>
> FWIW, that scaling can be turned off.

I missed that option. Where is it?
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's!
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

Pascal Berger
2004-03-09, 05:08
Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> I missed that option. Where is it?
enter about:config in the url bar, then filter for
browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing

hth
pascal

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-03-09, 05:30
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 07:08, Pascal Berger wrote:
> Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> > I missed that option. Where is it?
> enter about:config in the url bar, then filter for
> browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing

Thanks. Tried it. It appears it only applies to images that don't have
scaling or resizing attributes on the tags. Even with that disabled, 300
sq. images get scaled up to half-screen.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
Never Forget: It's Only 1's and 0's!
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

Jack Coates
2004-03-09, 08:27
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 03:37, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 00:29, Jack Coates wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 16:57, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> > > ...frame source'). From experience, Firefox will scale whatever image is
> > > available to fit that 100%. And at 1280x1024, if it happens to be one of
> > ...
> >
> > FWIW, that scaling can be turned off.
>
> I missed that option. Where is it?

Tools > Options > Advanced > Multimedia
--
Jack at Monkeynoodle Dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
************************************************** *********************
*"I'm boring some sailor, as I try to get through... He said I'm *
*better off without you babe, til I showed him my tattoo." *
*-- Warm Beer and Cold Women from Nighthawks at the Diner by Tom Waits*
************************************************** *********************