How are you poeple seriously voting no? You really weant the WRONG images in the DB? I've seen you all aruge for this more often than not, and now you all are flip-flopping,

I think they'd rather keep the re-release images that are sharp and clear than replace them with something that is way too soft, dark and illegible. Just my opinion...your mileage may vary.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
I think they'd rather keep the re-release images that are sharp and clear than replace them with something that is way too soft, dark and illegible. Just my opinion...your mileage may vary.

They should vote YES and then lock the cover on their local database.

There have been a few submissions over the last week or so of new scans for this profile. In each case the notes say 'Sharper Images' and it just is not true. My guess would be that the scans were resized, which can often make them fuzzy. Yes they are the 'right' scans, but they are not as sharp as the current scans.

I have the re-release version so I voted 'neutral'.

pdf

One thing that might help is if you size the image in Photoshop to the size that it will be in the online database (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, sorry) and THEN run unsharp mask.  If you sharpen an image that has a considerably larger pixel dimensions before you (or the contibution system) down-sizes it, your sharpening will be less effective.

(BTW, I voted incorrectly on this and am going to change it now. )

Well basically the same thing with my submission for Masters of Horror set, the images is not fully sharp due to the recessing of the package but it is the only actual cover art submitted I have two votes against it, leaveing the pre-release ad-art in our data base its not even a full head on picture. P.S if someone was able to get a sharper picture I be more then happy to vote for it.

In my second submission I did make it clear right off that they were the proper covers, gave examples pointing out the slight differences and sound theories as to how that proved them correct (me buying day of release, ratings box a newer thing, missing Dolby word in specs, obvilous stuff), had 92% of the vote including many with a "proper cover" note, and still they got declined.
I get the feeling that in a swarm of submissions whoever does the final O.K. on covers read the "no" votes, then did a quick once over and agreed my blacks sucked. All other evidence was there so this is the only way I can make sense of leaving the wrong covers up.

I may try once more but really don't feel like it now. I know the compression is hurting me but scanning at 300 is what works best for my scanner, the scans I've done at 100 look hit but I guess I could try that and hope it turns out different. Oh no, that's the definition of insanity!

Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
How are you poeple seriously voting no? You really weant the WRONG images in the DB? I've seen you all aruge for this more often than not, and now you all are flip-flopping,

The rule for cover scans start with this sentence:

Before submitting new scans of cover art, make sure your new covers are of significantly higher quality than the existing online images, and meet the following criteria:

The new images are NOT of significantly higher quality.  Because of that, I am voting 'no'.

The reason for the new scans being submitted is this portion of the rule:

If a title is re-released with the same UPC, but different cover images do not contribute the new images.

For me, this does not trump the 'significantly higher quality' portion of the rule.