Derek and the Dominos - Live at the Fillmore: Added Full Artwork

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007ff14a2b30c0>

Greetings all. 1st time here on the forums and first time contributor to MB (after months of user).

Just thought I’d put out a notice that I’ve added the full set of art for this important release, as suspect many of your own as well. (I was rather surprised it wasn’t already here).

Derek and the Dominos - Live at the Fillmore: Artwork

As a heavy Kodi user for Music I’ll be pleased to display the discart and Back (using AeonMQ). I’ve also UL’ed the full booklet for your reading pleasure.

Hope to continue this for some of my favorites.

5 Likes

Welcome fellow Kodian. Nice scans. Though did you notice you had cropped the side of the back so you lost one of the spines?

Technically that should be ticked as “Back, Spine” when both back and spine are visible.

It is a little comical when walking around the MB database. Some areas have HUGE coverage, others are a bit bare. Sometime’s you’ll bump into a Release with 20 PNG images attached at 4K plus resolution at 60MB each. Other times you stumble over a tiny 200x200 JPG.

It is all about the community and what we all can add together.

Also warn you - this place can get addictive. I first came over here from KODI forum as I needed to sort out a release as it was showing bad data. Here I am two years later uploading all my 500+ CDs and feeding all those booklets through my scanner. It is great as it reminded me how many of those booklets I had never opened. MB will send you down so many rabbit holes learning about your favourite artists.

4 Likes

Thanks for the nice welcome and helpful advice @IvanDobsky. I’ve rescanned the back and tagged it to include (both) spines now. :slight_smile:

It’s amazing how you’ve touched the very nerve I was feeling as I UP’d these files. It’s yet another dimension to my semi-OCD love to manage my music library. I just may try another one or two releases to see if the buzz improves or becomes scarier (Happy Halloween). If I could impose upon you to offer any advice about scans and UL’s here at MB I would appreciate it. In particular what resolution are you settled on?

BTW, I tried working with Kodi about creating some sort of way to “one-click” into a related Artwork folder while listening to individual albums. I would love to peruse the numerous booklet scans I’m accumulating. It’s tough and I don’t think they quite got where I was hoping to go. I’m still hopeful that I can come up with my own way to do so.

Cheers!

3 Likes

There’s a huge discussion about cover art here:

There are few hard and fast rules, but it will give a bigger context anyway.

5 Likes

I have got into a fairly routine habit with my scans. I can’t afford Photoshop so use Paint.NET for adjustments.

I scan at 600dpi and save as 80% JPGs. This gives very high quality but without the huge file size of the PNG. I play my music on a 50" TV screen so the artwork details are important to me.

The matrix may get a 1200dpi scan to get the mould details.

I tend to avoid much post-processing. A bit of a tweak of the brightness. A slight twist to make sure everything is straight. I leave damaged covers visible as these are more real.

There are a number of threads like @psychoadept has picked out. Also a few articles at Discogs if you want to go into overkill of perfection. Though don’t be put off by the way some people will spend hours on each image. The important thing is to get an image that someone else can use to confirm they have the same copy. Remember - MB is about identification first, not about tagging. :wink:

With me it is a time issue. If I have a whole release to scan including booklet that can be quite time consuming. That is at least a dozen images - often more if it is a big booklet.

Usually I’ll keep pages as a pair, other times I’ll split to separate pages. When uploading pages I’ll always add a note as to page numbers.

If I don’t have time to do the whole booklet, the most important pages to scan are those with the credits on. But it will still take me an hour or so to get through the scan, save, edit, tweak, crop, uploads.

I do fine it a little funny uploading a cover and knowing other people planet wide now have my cover with their music. :smiley:

With KODI and displaying the images - my theory is “be prepared”. KODI’s artwork handling is getting more advanced on the art side. Dave has added in a lot more links for the skinners to get at this art, but the still seem to be settling on the hows. So I keep scanning and expect more use of this by KODI at a later time.

Boxset handling is an example of this. I have all kinds of box sets with different art for the different discs. Black_eagle is now working on making use of that artwork. When his code becomes available, then I already have lots of albums ready to make use of it.

2 Likes

OMG - I just found one of the most extreme sets of images in ages.

12 images. Many of them two page booklets. And the file sizes? 165MB each!! 11680x6088 PNG scans! 1.8GB of images in total!! And this is just a greatest hits compilation.

Now that is a good example of too much detail IMHO. Especially as these booklets are mainly white! (Well, they would be if the guy had a decent scanner. Or bothered cleaning the glass as all the scans are covered in fur!)

It actually means my 200Mbps broadband fails to download the images. Picard chokes. Even trying to view them individually in a browser takes minutes. It is funny - it is like the old days of 300bps acoustic modems and watching images appear line by line!!

I’ve tried three times now to get Picard to download them and it fails.

My thoughts are always based around other people wanting to use the work I have uploaded. the artwork should not take up three times the space of the music. It needs to be clear enough to compare to a disc in hand and see the smallest of text clearly.

Gawd only knows what happens to people on more average connections!

(After wasting hours downloading these via the CAA itself I cropped them and then saved to JPG at 80% and now the whole SET is less than 136MB!)

So going back to the OP. The OP’s uploaded two page images at 6600x2944 pixels. Saved to JPG. At 3.5MB. And they look better than this huge set of images. Much more importantly they are far more usable.

3 Likes

That’s not fur, it is quantum fluctuation!
Now let me out of of this shoebox, the joke is wearing thin.
:smiley_cat:

2 Likes

What about uploading your edited versions instead of the practically unusable ones?

I usually would ask you to share a link. But in this case it probably should be done with a big fat warning as it’s probably killing people’s browser session :thinking:

3 Likes

The CAA can always be updated to offer more automatic resizes to download, but it will never be able to upsize images. Why not download the resized version or request a size that you need?

That said it’s not great if it’s freezing haha.

Imagine going back just a relatively short space of time and telling someone with a floppy drive (or even a ZIP drive!!!) that the future would find it helpful if they would save video at 4K :wink:

3 Likes

I did consider that. The only reason I didn’t is that my crops are not perfect as the originals are not straight. Only a couple of degrees out though so I will upload them later. Also needed the clone tool to take some huge hairs off of some of the images.

A link will not crash the browser. The website shows thumbnails file. I didn’t want to name the guy, but I don’t recognise the name. There are some forum members who upload large high quality images - this isn’t one of them. :smiley:

I noticed he had had a comment about the uploads not following the style guide due to the huge size, but still all voted through by AEs.

This is why I didn’t want to say it was wrong. I understand that argument. This extreme was a shock as I had never seen something make Picard have to give up like that. It is the only time I have had to go to the CAA archive itself and download the zip file. Even attempting to download each of the images separately was choking my browser.

The problem is here that they are not even nice images. It is just a case of “sling book on scanner, then upload”. I do at least make sure I polish the glass on my scanner first :smiley:

This does give a simple answer. Give an option to select “JPEG Version” when images climb over 20MB each. Just the simple act of saving these images as 80% JPGs gave an enormous saving of space. They are perfect for compression as they are mainly (off) white in colour. I’m a fussy old git when it comes to compression artifacts and I can’t see enough to trigger my OCD.

The current options for 250px or 500px high images are a joke and need updating with some modern usable sizes. Especially on a booklet it is unreadable.

2 Likes

you may find Affinity Photo useful it is a lot like photo shop but it is a one off payment. it has lots of good tools.

1 Like

I have the tools, but not always the time.

When I scan my own images I make sure they are straight. And I do my own cleanup before uploading them.

In this case it is someone else’s images and I was just quick cropping for my own use. Paint.NET does everything I need for free. I’m not really a fan of Serif products (We are in danger of dragging this off topic if we start talking about tools)

1 Like

They are now (slowly uploading to become) available (Big Arts). But at 10MB per JPG image they are still bigger than I would normally upload. I also don’t have the skillz to tweak the colours correctly.

Try clicking on the “original” version of one of the two page JPGs and time how long it takes for your web browser to open the page to view. hehe… even my 10MB JPG crops are glacially slow.

And I’ll repeat - I am not anti-quality, but I do like to see a page load in a few seconds. :crazy_face:

(I can see the F Man splitting this topic as it is now more about the big images that the OP. Prepare for slicing from around post 6… )

2 Likes

This seems to have slowed to a halt unfortunately, but still worth putting a vote in: https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/CAA-88

1 Like

Tickets fall into some kind of black hole of time. Suddently popping out the other side fixed without warning.

It is a little comedic that current choices are 250, 500, 2944. HEHE :crazy_face:

This is one of those areas I think Picard could stick out a warning. When downloading huge art files it would be nice to set a “if bigger than 10MB” warning or similar. Try pointing Picard at the example I picked and see what happens! Would be good to get a warning pop up of some form.

I can see this especially being an issue for people with compilations that just happen to include one of those Pulp tracks. Haha - just imagine… Picard will accidentally picks the wrong match and selects the 1.8GB art version… (and yes, some of us do like downloading all arts… but then you know I am mad).

In my experience most images already have a 1200px version available. I even made a userscript to expose these on MusicBrainz.org. See this for link to userscript and additional comments on the matter:

Picard probably won’t get the 1200 option until the backlog of images have had a 1200 version rendered, but for browsing MusicBrainz at least, my userscript has made it a lot more pleasant for me. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Any chance a 1200px link can be sneaked onto the cover-art page? A step between tiny, small and huuuuuge would be handy.

image

I often hit those buttons when trying to read the covers when updating the database. 500px is too small to be able to read text, and when the next jump is 3000px high PeNGuins it is a little comical waiting for the image to load.

There is a nice userscript that does this: https://github.com/murdos/musicbrainz-userscripts/#mb_1200px_caa

2 Likes

@elomatreb thanks for the script, and I have added it.

The problem with scripts is it makes us forget what the website is missing. I am thinking of the average user here. I was also wondering how that average person works on images like that on more average broadband. :smiley:

LOL - that is funny. I click on the 1200px link that has been added by the script and the image appears instantly on my screen. Click on the “original” link and it takes over 5 minutes… (Looks for Dial-Up icon)

This Release is kept on the side for torture tests of Picard…

Picard has the 1200 px option since the 2.0 release last year :wink: But of course this only helps if there is a 1200 pixel version available, otherwise you will just get the 500 px one.

5 Likes