Is the image really that big or is it blown-up to fit the screen? When I go to page info in Firefox (Ctrl+I) and then the tab Media, I find the following largest image: https://fastly-s3.allmusic.com/release/mr0000123831/front/1080/JulZtREikT70uVbScTvYOj6KsMttLlyBmmVTZ6_CLs0=.jpg (1080 × 1066). So I’m wondering if that is the same image you are seeing, or if there is an even larger image stored somewhere that can’t be found through page info.
Because cropped and recompressed (like the back image) and/or including some browser icons (like the front image) and fake big size (small size expanded) and recompressed (I already told that).
If you are going to screen crop images from another site - then please say that in the edit note. This allows someone to replace them at a later time if they have a cleaner source.
And yes, those images look bad. The splatters on the image from the cover are icky. And there is a clear smudgy blur. Like it is the kind of out of focus you get when drunk. Saving something as a PNG does not magically put quality back.
If you take a 153KB 1080 image and stretch it to a higher resolution the art program has to guess how to fill the missing bits. Especially if the original is badly compressed in the first place. This is what leads to the lack of sharpness.
It is a 153KB highly compressed 1080 JPG, converting into a 4MB PNG is not going to improve it.
I tried to do back and forth comparison between the two images. Something weird has happened to your PNG that made it really slow to load in the browser. Like the old days of dial-up
But that is clearly not a 600dpi image. And once it is compressed it is compressed and data is lost. It is why I save my scan as JPGs at 85% instead of 60% compression as there is a HUGE difference in what they look like.
All I ask is in the edit notes say “screen grab from allmusic”. Let people honestly know where it comes from.
" When it comes to PC displays, most products have a pixel density of about 96 ppi to match the display density of 96 dpi (dots per inch) which has been the standard for the Windows desktop UI. The standard for the new Start screen and other aspects of the Modern UI of Windows 8 and later is 135 dpi (automatically switching between 100%, 140% and 180% depending on the pixel density of the display device), but the standard for the desktop UI is still 96 dpi.
As such, up until now, PC displays have been designed based on the assumption that the OS and applications would have a fixed display density (96 ppi for Windows). The 96 dpi standard is behind this assumption, and the screen size increased with the higher resolution of LCD panels (increased pixel counts), so it was safe to simply consider that the higher the resolution (pixel count), the larger the work space."
You can hold SHIFT while right-clicking to force the context menu to appear nevertheless. Then you can save the original image instead of doing this questionable workaround with the screenshot.
It looks like crap. And saving it at a higher res makes it still look like crap but take longer to download. Please don’t try and manipulate an image falsely. And just state where it comes from in the edit note.
I don’t need a lecture about screens copy\pasted from a google search.
The smallest element of an image is pixel, here 1080 pixels.
If you enlarge it to 2160 pixels, the new 1080 pixels will just be created out of the blue by one or another method (blur, double pixels, interpolation) and it will bring only clutter.
Enhanced Cover Art Uploads integrates img max url, which will automatically check for higher res images, as a bonus (otherwise running the any web image url through max img url is a compulsory step).
the problem is, that you blow up a picture and your browser interprets the empty spaces between pixels with new pixels (which haven’t been there before)
besides that thank you thread for the solution to get the original size image! unfortunately Allmusic blocked the easy way to get the image some months ago.
Saving something as a PNG does not magically put quality back.
