Poor Quality Scans? Let's Replace Them!

[Shadow Kisuragi]

This thread is for reporting pages with poor quality scans. In an effort to cleanup the scans for our database, let's list pages with poor quality scans and get them up to par!

Note that we are looking for high quality scans at 550px (short side) and 300 dpi. PNG and JPG are acceptable formats for submission. Here's an example of the quality we're looking for:

[img width=550 height=778]http://www.rfgeneration.com/images/games/U-031/bf/U-031-S-00270-A.jpg[/img][img width=550 height=772]http://www.rfgeneration.com/images/games/U-031/bb/U-031-S-00270-A.jpg[/img]

[Shadow Kisuragi]

Top Gun: Combat Zones (Mastiff, PS2)
http://www.rfgeneration.c...nfo.pl?ID=U-072-S-09101-A

[ApolloBoy]

This is a great idea, I'm probably gonna break out the scanner today in that case.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

Feel free to suggest changes to the image policy as well if you feel that we can get better quality images with other constraints. The policy is outdated right now.

[blcklblskt]

Feel free to suggest changes to the image policy as well if you feel that we can get better quality images with other constraints. The policy is outdated right now.

I think a minimum of 600DPI should be required for image quality reasons.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

600DPI should only make a visual difference if you're trying to enlarge the image? 600DPI scans take my scanner over a minute to produce. Not that I'm going to complain should someone submit a 600DPI scan, but the human eye has difficulty telling the difference between 300DPI and 600DPI. At that point, the extra DPI is just filling in pixels that the image roughly translates, and at the size we're looking at for images (550px short side), it's negligible.

Unless you have an image comparison that shows otherwise?

[Sirgin]

All of my scans are scanned at 600DPI. You need a new scanner, Shadow. (a faster one)

But to be honest, given RFG's current 550px limit, you can get away with 300DPI. After resizing, most of the detail is gone anyway.

I'm fine with the 550px limit, too. Replacing it would lead to inconsistencies and just be a giant hassle to replace thousands of images.

[Izret101]

^ We already need to do that.
We have tens of thousands in the DB at 450 which was the original standard.

[techwizard]

that should be included in this topic too then, not just the quality but the proper dimensions.

[Sirgin]

^ We already need to do that.
We have tens of thousands in the DB at 450 which was the original standard.

Oh really? Wow, I didn't know that. Good I'm keeping my original scans then, in case the standard gets changed again.

[Izret101]

Would the tech guys be able to whip up a script to detect which existing scans were wrong dimensions?
Or would that be too taxing for them and/or the site?

[Shadow Kisuragi]

Would the tech guys be able to whip up a script to detect which existing scans were wrong dimensions?
Or would that be too taxing for them and/or the site?

Shouldn't be too difficult, but it would slow down the site while the script was running. We can fire it off one night to check the file attributes.

[Izret101]

Cool deal.
Yaaay another good idea.
Shame that is all i am good for...

[Izret101]

http://www.rfgeneration.c...027-S-01550-A&type=gs

[Tynstar]

Is that a bad scan? If so why?