I got a quick question, I'm about to rip my CD collection within the coming weeks, but I got a question, what DPI should I use to scan cd covers, I currently use 600 DPI usually, but it might be stupid if the cd cover print is lower...so anyone who knows anything about this ?
Thanks
Full Version: Cd covers & DPI ?
I usually go with 300 or 600 DPI, then edit the image by painting out the imperfections such as white blops in black areas, etc.
You'll of course need an image editing program that doesn't automatically reduce the DPI when saving so avoid Microsoft Paint.
You'll of course need an image editing program that doesn't automatically reduce the DPI when saving so avoid Microsoft Paint.
What do you plan on doing with it? If it's just for eyewash on your iPod or foobar config, then 600 dpi is way overkill, plus if you were saving as png the filesizes would be huge. Try scanning at 100, 200, or 300 and seeing what's acceptable to you.
To put things in perspective, the 300 x 300 pixel cover art common on the 'net is roughly 60 dpi.
To put things in perspective, the 300 x 300 pixel cover art common on the 'net is roughly 60 dpi.
QUOTE(Remedial Sound @ Feb 22 2007, 09:55) 
What do you plan on doing with it? If it's just for eyewash on your iPod or foobar config, then 600 dpi is way overkill, plus if you were saving as png the filesizes would be huge. Try scanning at 100, 200, or 300 and seeing what's acceptable to you.
To put things in perspective, the 300 x 300 pixel cover art common on the 'net is roughly 60 dpi.
Well, I bought this good scanner Epson V350 Photo for one reason..I want as good quality as possible. So I wondered what settings I should use on cd cover which will capture every "dot". I did read from wikipedia now, that "printing" is usually 300 dpi, but it did not say it was CD covers..it might be higher ???
QUOTE(Ekstasis @ Feb 22 2007, 17:02)
QUOTE(Remedial Sound @ Feb 22 2007, 09:55)
What do you plan on doing with it? If it's just for eyewash on your iPod or foobar config, then 600 dpi is way overkill, plus if you were saving as png the filesizes would be huge. Try scanning at 100, 200, or 300 and seeing what's acceptable to you.
To put things in perspective, the 300 x 300 pixel cover art common on the 'net is roughly 60 dpi.
Well, I bought this good scanner Epson V350 Photo for one reason..I want as good quality as possible. So I wondered what settings I should use on cd cover which will capture every "dot". I did read from wikipedia now, that "printing" is usually 300 dpi, but it did not say it was CD covers..it might be higher ???
Also, if you plan on actually embedding the image files into your digital audio files, and you have huge 600DPI PNG images 2mb each, each audio file will become 2mb bigger...
300dpi for your "masters" is the general best practice in most lossless forums.
It's way overkill for general use though.
You can do the following:
1. scan covers and booklets at 300dpi
2. apply some sort of noise reduction filter
3. save as png (these are your "masters")
4. resize the cover to 640x640 and save as jpg (this is for everyday use, should be around 50kb-90kb)
It's way overkill for general use though.
You can do the following:
1. scan covers and booklets at 300dpi
2. apply some sort of noise reduction filter
3. save as png (these are your "masters")
4. resize the cover to 640x640 and save as jpg (this is for everyday use, should be around 50kb-90kb)
QUOTE(leokennis @ Feb 22 2007, 10:14)
QUOTE(Ekstasis @ Feb 22 2007, 17:02)
QUOTE(Remedial Sound @ Feb 22 2007, 09:55)
What do you plan on doing with it? If it's just for eyewash on your iPod or foobar config, then 600 dpi is way overkill, plus if you were saving as png the filesizes would be huge. Try scanning at 100, 200, or 300 and seeing what's acceptable to you.
To put things in perspective, the 300 x 300 pixel cover art common on the 'net is roughly 60 dpi.
Well, I bought this good scanner Epson V350 Photo for one reason..I want as good quality as possible. So I wondered what settings I should use on cd cover which will capture every "dot". I did read from wikipedia now, that "printing" is usually 300 dpi, but it did not say it was CD covers..it might be higher ???
Also, if you plan on actually embedding the image files into your digital audio files, and you have huge 600DPI PNG images 2mb each, each audio file will become 2mb bigger...
Well as for compression and filesize, it should not be bigger then 3 mb. And as for the format, which should I use jpeg ?
I have also heard very good things about microsofts new format "HD Photo". But I think my scanner program do not support it unfortunately..
QUOTE(beto @ Feb 22 2007, 10:20)
300dpi for your "masters" is the general best practice in most lossless forums.
It's way overkill for general use though.
You can do the following:
1. scan covers and booklets at 300dpi
2. apply some sort of noise reduction filter
3. save as png (these are your "masters")
4. resize the cover to 640x640 and save as jpg (this is for everyday use, should be around 50kb-90kb)
I did read now that PNG is an non-destructive format, so how big does the files get when scanning cd covers ?
is it under 10 mb or bigger ?
QUOTE(Ekstasis @ Feb 22 2007, 13:30)
I did read now that PNG is an non-destructive format, so how big does the files get when scanning cd covers ?
is it under 10 mb or bigger ?
My "masters" are around 7mb after filtering and using png.
If you use jpgs you can bring this number way down, but jpgs are lossy.
QUOTE(beto @ Feb 22 2007, 11:52)
QUOTE(Ekstasis @ Feb 22 2007, 13:30)
I did read now that PNG is an non-destructive format, so how big does the files get when scanning cd covers ?
is it under 10 mb or bigger ?
My "masters" are around 7mb after filtering and using png.
If you use jpgs you can bring this number way down, but jpgs are lossy.
Well I guess I could live with 7mb if Only rip front/back...but sometimes I scan the whole booklet..then it might be to much.. does anyone how to convert png/tiff to HD Photo ?
Correct me if Im wrong.. Tiff is also non-destructive ?
The Epson program support both formats...
QUOTE(Ekstasis @ Feb 22 2007, 13:11)
Tiff is also non-destructive ?
IIRC it is.
QUOTE(LANjackal @ Feb 22 2007, 21:42)
QUOTE(Ekstasis @ Feb 22 2007, 13:11)
Tiff is also non-destructive ?
IIRC it is.
TIFF is a container, just like ogg. The image it an contain can be compressed lossless (zip, lzw), or lossy (jpeg).
Scan -> save as PNG (lossless) -> edit -> save as jpg (-> delete PNG)
Comparing a jpg picture at the best setting with the same picture in a lossless format is like comparing a WAV file with an MP3 version of the same file at 320 kbps. Sure, something is "lost", but you will not be able to detect it.
Photoshop saves jpg in levels from 0-12 (12=best).
10 will give you very good quality and reasonably small file.
Don't go below 8. If you need smaller files than 8 can provide reduce the resolution instead.
Comparing a jpg picture at the best setting with the same picture in a lossless format is like comparing a WAV file with an MP3 version of the same file at 320 kbps. Sure, something is "lost", but you will not be able to detect it.
Photoshop saves jpg in levels from 0-12 (12=best).
10 will give you very good quality and reasonably small file.
Don't go below 8. If you need smaller files than 8 can provide reduce the resolution instead.
QUOTE(Rivers1080p @ Feb 22 2007, 13:26)
Scan -> save as PNG (lossless) -> edit -> save as jpg (-> delete PNG)
Comparing a jpg picture at the best setting with the same picture in a lossless format is like comparing a WAV file with an MP3 version of the same file at 320 kbps. Sure, something is "lost", but you will not be able to detect it.
Photoshop saves jpg in levels from 0-12 (12=best).
10 will give you very good quality and reasonably small file.
Don't go below 8. If you need smaller files than 8 can provide reduce the resolution instead.
Yeah you are probably right there...I usually use the program "Advanced JPEG Compressor" it's mostly impossible to see any difference, unless you zoom the picture..then you might see the difference in the depth.. But I'm still very interested in HD Photo since it is said to be so "revolutionary" , Can I convert png (lossless) into HD Photo, and if so with which program ?
I know not many programs support the format today..but it must be some program out there..
<Rant>
I don't know what you expect this M$ "HD Photo" format to offer, but I can assure you that whatever marginal quality/filesize advantages it may have over the de-facto standard formats will be outweighed tenfold by it's incompatibility. How long has jpeg2000 been around? Do you see it anywhere? No. The only thing a format like this will do is bind you to using microsoft products and other proprietary bull$hit. I imagine it also probably allows users to "copy-protect" their photos.
My advice stick with png for lossless image compression and jpeg for lossy.
</rant>
I don't know what you expect this M$ "HD Photo" format to offer, but I can assure you that whatever marginal quality/filesize advantages it may have over the de-facto standard formats will be outweighed tenfold by it's incompatibility. How long has jpeg2000 been around? Do you see it anywhere? No. The only thing a format like this will do is bind you to using microsoft products and other proprietary bull$hit. I imagine it also probably allows users to "copy-protect" their photos.
My advice stick with png for lossless image compression and jpeg for lossy.
</rant>
QUOTE(Remedial Sound @ Feb 22 2007, 14:11)
<Rant>
I don't know what you expect this M$ "HD Photo" format to offer, but I can assure you that whatever marginal quality/filesize advantages it may have over the de-facto standard formats will be outweighed tenfold by it's incompatibility. How long has jpeg2000 been around? Do you see it anywhere? No. The only thing a format like this will do is bind you to using microsoft products and other proprietary bull$hit. I imagine it also probably allows users to "copy-protect" their photos.
My advice stick with png for lossless image compression and jpeg for lossy.
</rant>
hehe
Well, the difference is supposed to be far more then "marginal" atleast from what I have heard so far...
But yeah..so if I'm going to use JPEG, what program has the best compression alogoritm ?
Is still ADVANCED JPEG COMPRESSION the best compressor (from png to jpeg)
or is Photoshop better ???
QUOTE(Ekstasis @ Feb 22 2007, 15:26)
But yeah..so if I'm going to use JPEG, what program has the best compression alogoritm ?
Paint.NET does a good job at JPEG qualities 95% to 100%. Pixelation/lossiness or whatever it's called in JPEG images starts to suffer under 95% to my eyes. Personally I use 95% the default setting and can't really tell a difference quality-wise from a PNG.
QUOTE(Andavari @ Feb 22 2007, 15:47)
QUOTE(Ekstasis @ Feb 22 2007, 15:26)
But yeah..so if I'm going to use JPEG, what program has the best compression alogoritm ?
Paint.NET does a good job at JPEG qualities 95% to 100%. Pixelation/lossiness or whatever it's called in JPEG images starts to suffer under 95% to my eyes. Personally I use 95% the default setting and can't really tell a difference quality-wise from a PNG.
Alright sounds indeed good...how big does the files get at 95% ?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.