Thank you for your donation!


Cloudsmith graciously provides open-source package management and distribution for our project.


Withdrawn: No more blurry album covers!
#1
I am withdrawing this request as the problem was largely caused by my browser cache.  Despite regenerating the thumbnails and reloading the page multiple times, the covers remained as 200x200 pixel images.  Clearing the browser cache fixed that -- they went to 400 as configured.

I'd be happier if I could select higher resolution and higher quality than 400px and a quality of 75.


I'm using my iMac Pro, which has a 5,120x2,880 display.  The album covers are quite blurry (AKA low-res) when browsing by album, even though I aim for 1000x1000 resolution when I embed the artwork in the tags.  The the artwork shows up sharp in the per-album tracklist.

It's my storage, network bandwidth, computers, and compute cycles and I want high res!   Smile

See the enclosed screenshot (even as a JPEG, the difference is obvious).


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Cheers,
  Miss Sissy Princess
Reply
#2
I could add additional resolutions.

What would you suggest?
Enjoy the Music!
moodeaudio.org | Mastodon Feed | GitHub
Reply
#3
(09-05-2020, 08:17 PM)Tim Curtis Wrote: I could add additional resolutions.

What would you suggest?

Thanks!

I'd suggest 600, 800, and 1000.  More and more people viewing on 4K and 5K large home theater screens and "Retina" style large monitors and I'd not want to predict how large they might want the covers to be.

If that seems excessive, then I'd start with 800.

In an ideal world, I'd like to be able to select JPG quality factors or even be able to go with PNG.  

I'm using a Pi 4 and have gigabit Ethernet throughout my house, so I can afford to try things that would obviously be impractical for someone with an older generation pi and a mediocre WiFi connection.  

Too much?
Cheers,
  Miss Sissy Princess
Reply
#4
Maybe.

Challenge #1 is that selecting a resolution higher than the images resolution will almost certainly result in poorer quality images. For example all my covers are <= 600x600px. If those are resampled up to 800 or 1000 they will have lots of artifacts.

Challenge #2 is that higher resolutions and quality factors generate much larger files. The thumbnail generator will take longer to create the images and they will take longer to load into the Browser. I won't know what the impact on performance will be until I do some testing.

In spite of the challenges I think adding more resolution and quality options is a good idea :-) I'll start with 600 and 800 with a few different quality factors like 85 and 95.
Enjoy the Music!
moodeaudio.org | Mastodon Feed | GitHub
Reply
#5
I'd rather have a choice I don't need than need a choice I don't have.

800 or 1000px images are probably not the right choice for someone with a library full of tracks with 500px cover art, someone with 2500 albums that is modified frequently, or someone running moOde over 2.4GHz WiFi on a R. Pi 3.  But for me, with a few hundred albums, high-res cover art, gigabit Ethernet, and a Raspberry Pi 4, I think that 800 pixels would be great.

No concerns about the time to generate the thumbnails -- it's crazy-fast now.  I'd be fine waiting five times as long if need be in order to get higher resolution.  I'll be curious to see how it affects GUI responsiveness, but I suspect it won't be an issue on my setup.

Thanks again, Tim.
Cheers,
  Miss Sissy Princess
Reply
#6
lol, so true.
Enjoy the Music!
moodeaudio.org | Mastodon Feed | GitHub
Reply
#7
You don’t really want a super high image quality setting because it makes files much larger for diminishing returns, your thumbs could wind up larger than the original images.

Assuming full screen the maximum thumbnail image size for a 5120x2880 screen would be ~671px with a 6/2 thumbnail layout (less for more thumbs shown). Your iMac Pro runs in hidpi mode but that makes it logically appear to be 2560x1440 with the end result of using the extra pixels to improve fidelity rather than display more data. Images are an exception so you still need thumbs at the same ~671px for the image to be sharp. As a comparison the 6k Pro Display XDR needs about 800px at 6/2, my MBP needs ~400px. The problem with big images (and why we don’t just use the original cover art scaled down) is that it uses a lot of memory and your browser needs to load them so it’s slower. Your ideal thumb size is the same size as the maximum image size at an iq value high enough to produce good results but low enough to produce small files. Another point of comparison - Photoshop’s “high” jpeg image quality default is 60. It might be helpful to re-size a few images yourself with Preview and tweak the quality slider to see how it affects the results so you can see at what point there’s a trade off between size and quality you’d be willing to make.
Reply
#8
Thats a good idea, to test some sample size/quals.
Enjoy the Music!
moodeaudio.org | Mastodon Feed | GitHub
Reply
#9
(09-16-2020, 07:49 AM)swizzle Wrote: You don’t really want a super high image quality setting because it makes files much larger for diminishing returns, your thumbs could wind up larger than the original images.

Assuming full screen the maximum thumbnail image size for a 5120x2880 screen would be ~671px with a 6/2 thumbnail layout (less for more thumbs shown). Your iMac Pro runs in hidpi mode but that makes it logically appear to be 2560x1440 with the end result of using the extra pixels to improve fidelity rather than display more data. Images are an exception so you still need thumbs at the same ~671px for the image to be sharp. As a comparison the 6k Pro Display XDR needs about 800px at 6/2, my MBP needs ~400px. The problem with big images (and why we don’t just use the original cover art scaled down) is that it uses a lot of memory and your browser needs to load them so it’s slower. Your ideal thumb size is the same size as the maximum image size at an iq value high enough to produce good results but low enough to produce small files. Another point of comparison - Photoshop’s “high” jpeg image quality default is 60. It might be helpful to re-size a few images yourself with Preview and tweak the quality slider to see how it affects the results so you can see at what point there’s a trade off between size and quality you’d be willing to make.

Yes, I really want a super high quality setting.  I have the CPU, RAM, RAID storage, and gigabit networking to support it comfortably.  I'm quickly moving all of my music to lossless, so the penalty in storage for a bigger picture isn't a big deal.

The reason for my request of 600, 800, and 1000 was future-proofing.  There's no sense in limiting the image size options such that they have to be revisited every few years as we see increases in R-Pi performance, RAM, screen sizes, and resolutions.   Looking at a 6-wide album cover layout on my full-screen browser, even though the album art is displayed larger next to the tracklist, the larger cover art is clearly sharper than corresponding thumbnails.  That just shouldn't be; if anything, the smaller image should look sharper, but certainly not less sharp.

"The problem with big images (and why we don’t just use the original cover art scaled down) is that it uses a lot of memory and your browser needs to load them so it’s slower. "
Slower than the ~0.7 seconds it takes now to load up my library of album art at 400px on moOde using gigabit ethernet?  Oh no!   Big Grin

What a person considers to be acceptable is going to be based on their own priorities, CPU(s), RAM, storage space, network performance, music library size, and sense of what is "good enough." I would not presume to limit everyone else to only the subset of choices that would satisfy me at this moment in time.

Your suggestion for determining optimal settings is great.  Give users the ability to do that within moOde and many will  That's better than having them spend the time outside of moOde only to find that their Raspberry Pi's CPU, RAM, storage, or network connectivity imposes a bottleneck they hadn't planned on.  If you're happy with the default, no harm in having settings that you're not ready to explore.  It's just like a video game.  Some just play the games at the default settings.  Others people only care about framerate; and others are willing to settle for a lower framerate for better graphics.  That's why you can do so much tuning in most modern games.
Cheers,
  Miss Sissy Princess
Reply
#10
Making the thumbnails larger won’t improve the resolution of your display, the largest a thumbnail image (6/2 currently) can only ever be ~700px for your display. 700px x 6 = 4200px with the remainder being spacing between thumbs and the screen edges.

I think a better option for users that find themselves in a similar situation might be a setting to bypass thumbnails (or at least large thumbs) and instead use the original image instead of generated thumbnails.
Reply


Forum Jump: