[mb-devel] Meeting to determine covert art image types
paul_t100 at fastmail.fm
Fri Dec 16 15:26:25 UTC 2011
On 16/12/2011 14:46, Kuno Woudt wrote:
> On 15/12/11 12:09, Ian McEwen wrote:
>> The difficulty with booklets is that they frequently conflict with
>> 'front' -- by conflict, I mean that the first page of the booklet and
>> the front of the album are usually the same image. With both types
>> available at the filename level, there are two options: either duplicate
>> the image, under both names (which is both wasteful of space and
>> difficult to maintain -- what do we do when a replacement image is
>> uploaded?) or to put it only one, limiting the usefulness of the other
>> category -- without knowing the duplication (through, say, an external
>> file like in proposal 1), the booklet can't be reassembled with only
> Even though the images may be the same in many cases, even in those
> cases scans may not be. Typically the booklet is scanned by a single
> person as a set of files from the same source. If another person then
> comes along and uploads a better resolution cover scan, it should not
> overwrite the booklet cover scan.
> The booklet cover scan is part of the set of files which form the
> booklet, and it would be very annoying to have one file in that set
> use a different resolution and colour profile because it was taken
> from a different source. Or the booklet scans may have had other
> postprocessing applied to them (sharpening or other filters).
> Having separate slots for the front cover and the cover of the booklet
> is a feature IMO, even if these images in many cases contain the same
> art, keeping the scans of them separate is a good thing.
> -- kuno / warp.
Agree, they are different things that happen to look the same.
More information about the MusicBrainz-devel