I never uploaded most of these because most of them are like this, more like 800x1200, and they should probably all be cropped, the huge padding to (lazily) make them "wallpapers" is really ugly ...

Totally agree, but I might as well complete the pool.

I'd sooner run through and crop them first so they look decent...

I would prefer it if we kept the pool 'as is' but you are more then welcome to make your cropped images the Parent item.

I don't think that makes sense. Pools should be viewable without having to jump to parent images for half of the posts to find the one that isn't ugly.

We've had this argument before. These images are 'as is' from an old Torrent, and I don't see any problems posting them as a pool. Perhaps you should pool together your cropped versions separately?

Then we'd have a duplicate pool with ugly versions of images sitting around. I'm still not seeing any reason for wanting to leave unfixed posts around in a pool. Cropped versions would be unequivocally "better".

You are sometimes just too eager to crop pictures. I haven't forgotten what you did to some of the FormCode scans. Sometimes it is better to leave scans 'as is' rather then force your aesthetic views on others.

Seeing as I'm in no rush to nuke the index, and I feel that you are actually right about some of these, feel free to crop them. Do you want me to sit on the hold/post until you are done?

But what I want to know is why. You sort of talk as if it's self-evident why images shouldn't have empty spaces cropped out of them, but it's not to me.

(And I have to take exception to this mystery Form Code gripe. If you have complaints from more than half a year ago that you want to pull out of storage, please be specific and don't just rumble that I've "done something" that you "havn't forgotton". That's just accusatory, and leaves me with no idea what you're talking about.)

I don't mind cropping these, but it'll take a while and the image search isn't going to match many of them up; I don't really want to have to match up a hundred images by hand... It'd probably be easy enough if the pool ordering was correct, I'm not sure how off it is (it looks like at least blocks of images line up).

http://moe.imouto.org/post/show/43680 I don't want to waste any more time on accusations/counter-accusations. Just live with the fact that some people will never agree with all your choices.

The pool ordering is correct, but I do seem to be missing some pages. If you've got the same Torrent as me you'll see the pages are numbered.

If you don't want to see these as a pool, I could delete the current pooling and use a UID tag until you are happy to pool them?

I'll just chime in as well. I personally would prefer that pools contained images in the way the medium displayed them. The cropped/fixed versions can be in the main index, but I would prefer the pool contained the "original" formatting the artist intended.

I'm not making accusations. I'm just asking for you to explain your opinion.

The numbers in the pool order page should line up with the number of the image (preferably page numbers; in this case, since it's not a scan, the numbers in the filenames), since it uses those numbers for ZIP filenames. Unfortunately, these have some weird numberings ("93a, 93b") and the pools can't handle that cleanly right now. Maybe I'll just change the pool ordering to strings so it'll accept those...

> the artist intended

The artist intended for it to be viewed on paper. This is a different medium.

If you missed earlier discussions, a review: monitors are much lower resolution than paper and white borders effectively lower it further. Monitors are an emittive medium, where paper is reflective; an image with white borders is often like trying to view images while someone's pointing a flashlight in your face--the effect is very different. Monitors are their own framing, both from the actual frame of your monitor, and the inevitable border from your image viewer due to the image not fitting your monitor perfectly; borders in the image itself often mean you end up with layers of conflicting borders, as if you framed an image for your wall and used layered mats that didn't make sense.

Radioactive said:
http://moe.imouto.org/post/show/43680

Incidentally, I'm just confused here. This is the same as your post #43043 (just previously); I just recreated the same image using the less burnt-out colors and higher resolution of post #15416.

I think I look at it in a similar way to someone who uses FLAC for their music. You want the original copy, not the MP3. I view an edit/crop as an MP3. Sure, it sounds ok for the most part, but I still want the original for transcodes later, or when I'm listening in better/quieter environments than normal.

I think that works as an analogy anyway.

I think that analogy makes sense for certain edits, like denoising and joins, which is why we usually don't delete source posts for those. I think removing white space around the edge is more analogous to, say, cutting out silence between tracks.

Personally, for an image like this I would say crop away (as long paint outside the "borders" isn't cropped). It is just white space after all. I wouldn't be surprised if someone added the white space to begin with. It's not like it would be hard to add it back if you really wanted a wallpaper.

On the other hand, I take a different stance to artbook page scans with other things on the page (like text and graphics). I like keeping a HQ scan of the original that is not denoised, cropped, fixed, or modified in any way. In addition to that I also like keeping denoised, cropped, fixed, and modified images to complement the original page.

Some people may download just for the image, other people may download because it is a page out of an artbook, magazine, cd cover, poster, etc and want the whole thing as is.

As for pools, there is no ultimate solution. There is merit to wanting only the original scans in the pool and there is also merit for wanting fixed images in the pool as well (since they are from the same source after all).

Would it be possible to add something like parent and child pools to moe? Then you could have an original pool and a fixed pool that are parent/child to each other?

petopeto said:
I think that analogy makes sense for certain edits, like denoising and joins, which is why we usually don't delete source posts for those. I think removing white space around the edge is more analogous to, say, cutting out silence between tracks.

Actually people who prefer FLAC have standards for what to do with the silence between tracks. You append it to the previous track, as well as write it into cue files so the original CD can be replicated exactly.

So in that regard, I would say a Pool should represent the source material as authentically as possible. The main index can contain whatever edits. Though I might argue that joined pictures replace their unjoined counterparts, as I suspect the artist would have done so if books were some how differently made.

Nested Pools is something I've wanted forever on danbooru/moe. But for different reasons. To make it more visual and allow you to look at Artbooks, or Doujins etc. Just give a seperation between them, but I think most people disagree with that idea.

Well if parent/child pools is an unfavorable idea here, maybe just add some sort of separation (something as simple as colored borders around images on the pool page and not mixing original and modified images on the same pages) for keeping original and fixed images separate (yet still together) in pools. In addition, allowing fixed or originals to be filtered out from the pool view independently of tags would also be nice for people that only prefer one or the other.

> You append it to the previous track, as well as write it into cue files so the original CD can be replicated exactly.

This tangents off of the analogy entirely, but: I've considered adding something like the avatar cropping for posts, but I decided it wasn't a good idea. It could only apply to sample images, and there are so other many aspects of editing that I think handling this one part on the site would just overcomplicate things.

> So in that regard, I would say a Pool should represent the source material as authentically as possible. The main index can contain whatever edits.

My goal with pools is the same as with the index: having the images look good on a monitor (because that's how they're being viewed), which isn't always quite the same thing as trying to look just like the original; you can't make a monitor look like a piece of paper. That said, (continued below) ...

> Would it be possible to add something like parent and child pools to moe

I've considered playing tricks with post P/C for pools; for example, if you add a child image to a pool, the pool would actually show the parent instead. Then, there'd be a toggle on the pool page or something to show children instead. That way, you'd see edited versions by default (or "better alternates", etc., eg. when a difference source or book has the same image but with higher print/scan quality), but if you want unedited versions of the pool, there'd be an automatic way of doing that. I havn't completely fleshed out this idea, but I might revisit it, since it does sort of address both parts of this debate...

> look at Artbooks, or Doujins etc

I've thought about adding pool tagging for a long time, which would address most of the organizational issues of pools.

> I like keeping a HQ scan of the original that is not denoised, cropped, fixed, or

In some cases, having the original always makes sense; for example, the original version of post #43680 (post #15416)--that definitely should be kept. For things like descreening, we usually only keep the "raw" version around if the filtered version doesn't seem ideal (common if the unedited version is low quality to begin with). I don't think we'll ever make a habit of posting full raws, just because it's totally impractical--HQ raws are usually around 50 megs a page, so a 200-page magazine scan would be nearly ten gigs.

I don't think there is a simple way we can reconcile the original images from the Little World Pool, and your cropped versions

I guess we could add the cropped images to the Pool but with the caveat that they are marked as such?

Pool ordering is going to be a pain. At least they are in order as per the Torrent (No idea what I did with the missing ones)

I'm not making accusations. I'm just asking for you to explain your opinion

What opinion? I'm simply posting the images 'as is' You want to crop them for aesthetic reasons (Which I even agree with!) If you want to crop them, go ahead, but it seems the community would like to see the Pool as it currently is.

.

petopeto said:
I havn't completely fleshed out this idea, but I might revisit it, since it does sort of address both parts of this debate...

Good to see you have a solution in mind.

petopeto said:
HQ raws are usually around 50 megs a page, so a 200-page magazine scan would be nearly ten gigs.

Bring on 100MB+ 600dpi (or 1200dpi depending on the image) 48bpp tiff scans, I would totally download them! ~_^

It's not like that would ever happen here though, as it is a little excessive for a site like moe with limited storage and bandwidth. Scans like described above are more for optimal printing rather then optimal computer viewing anyways.

I tweaked the pool ordering so the "12a" filenames can be used directly as the sequence number, and it'll sort them correctly. (Before, they had to be numbers.) It also uses those as the filename in the ZIPs.

The reason I wanted them ordered this way is so if I upload other versions, I can just make a script that uploads these with "pool:310:123a" ("add to pool 310 with sequence 123a"), so even if they're cropped too much for the image search to connect them, they'll be right next to each other in the pool index so I can P/C images easily instead of having to hunt each image down one by one.

By the way, the smaller images here (like post #50942) are an example of what I'd use "hide" for: images that we probably wouldn't post on their own, but include to finish up a pool.

Scans like described above are more for optimal printing rather then optimal computer viewing anyways.

If you scan the screening of some other printer and then feed that directly to your own printer, you're sort of telling the printer to try to emulate the dithering of the source. You want to give clean, unscreened data to your printer, so it has the real colors you want to represent--it'll then print its own pattern of dots using its own dithering.

I'm not really speaking from printing experience here, only from a basic knowledge of how printers and dithering works and experience with graphics in general, but I'd be surprised if this was off. I'm pretty sure you'll get a sharper, cleaner image which looks closer to the original by printing a descreened image than a raw scan.

petopeto said:
If you scan the screening of some other printer and then feed that directly to your own printer, you're sort of telling the printer to try to emulate the dithering of the source. You want to give clean, unscreened data to your printer, so it has the real colors you want to represent--it'll then print its own pattern of dots using its own dithering.

I'm not really speaking from printing experience here, only from a basic knowledge of how printers and dithering works and experience with graphics in general, but I'd be surprised if this was off. I'm pretty sure you'll get a sharper, cleaner image which looks closer to the original by printing a descreened image than a raw scan.

For high-end print, depending on the type of output you want, you may be required to halftone your image anyways to get the best results. Images aren't screened just to annoy the hell out of people who scan, it has a purpose in high-end printing.

Anyways, I just like large unprocessed images so I can filter them myself. This is mainly issue when people over blur their scans and kill all the detail. It's always preferred to do filtering and modification on original images that haven't already been tinkered with beyond the point of no return.

Also for most of these images they were designed to be printed no bigger then 8x10". Resize a screened scan down to print size while matching your monitor ppi and you likely won't even see the screening. Expecting them to look great at something like 800% print size on your monitor is unrealistic.

For high-end print, depending on the type of output you want, you may be required to halftone your image anyways to get the best results. Images aren't screened just to annoy the hell out of people who scan, it has a purpose in high-end printing.

Yes, it has a purpose in low-end printing, too (all consumer color printers are dithering), but that should happen from clean data, not from data with screening from some other, completely different printer baked in.

Also for most of these images they were designed to be printed no bigger then 8x10". Resize a screened scan down to print size while matching your monitor ppi and you likely won't even see the screening. Expecting them to look great at something like 800% print size on your monitor is unrealistic.

Printing is so much higher resolution than a monitor (typically 70-80 DPI); almost all images I've seen that have been properly processed look excellent fullscreen at 1920x1200 or 1200x1920. It's not unrealistic, it's the norm.

petopeto said:
but that should happen from clean data, not from data with screening from some other, completely different printer baked in.

That is correct, it would be difficult to exactly match the screening of a scan to a different printer. Usually you would halftone your original image.

petopeto said:
Printing is so much higher resolution than a monitor (typically 70-80 DPI); almost all images I've seen that have been properly processed look excellent fullscreen at 1920x1200 or 1200x1920. It's not unrealistic, it's the norm.

I think you misunderstood me? Are you talking about resizing or fitting the high resolution image to full screen or viewing at 100%? If your just fitting the image to your monitor resolution and viewing fullscreen most unprocessed images will look great anyways.

If you think some of the huge processed scans on here look anything but blurry at 100% (viewed many times bigger then print size), we may have a difference of opinion. Some exceptional scans kept in high resolution look nice but most do not considering the original scanned image had almost no resolution to begin with.

That mindset is the same idea as taking say a 1200x800 image, resizing it to 4200x2800, filtering it, and claiming it is better then the original. You don't gain any true resolution by scanning a low resolution image at high dpi and then filtering it. The best you will ever get is something blurry but feasibly acceptable looking (at the cost of possible loss of detail and sharpness). The main reason for scanning and retaining an image at high dpi (resolution) is for printing purposes, not for display on a monitor.

By the way, what are we arguing about again and how does it relate to this image? This seems to be getting way off-topic for the image comment section. If you want to continue this, a forum thread should probably be made.

Taking a 300 DPI scan and scaling it to 1920x1200 looks fine. I'm not sure what else you might have meant. People don't normally view a 300 DPI scan at 1:1 and pan around the image...

You don't gain any true resolution by scanning a low resolution image at high dpi and then filtering it.

You don't gain resolution compared to the original; but you do prevent *losing* detail due to aliasing.

If you scan a 300 DPI image at 300 DPI, the "dots" (sampling) of your scanner aren't going to perfectly line up with the "dots" (dithering/screening) of the printer, so you probably end up with something that's more like 150 DPI. That's why you want to scan at a higher DPI than the source was printed on for filtering, and then downscale back down afterwards. (Of course, many people skip the downscaling step, which mostly just results in a larger file.)

But this has tangented so far I think I've forgotton the point. If you're printing an image, you definitely want a filtered image; I don't think that's in debate, you'd just prefer to do the filtering yourself. Tangentally, if you think you have better methods for image filtering, you can always post them to the forum; there's really not enough discussion about that topic (one of the most important to this board, I think) ...

petopeto said:
People don't normally view a 300 DPI scan at 1:1 and pan around the image...

That was exactly my point, hence I think we are misunderstanding each other.

petopeto said:
If you're printing an image, you definitely want a filtered image;

All I'll say is a filtered image that looks nice on your monitor doesn't mean it won't look worse in print then an unfiltered image. When printing to the same dimensions or smaller then scan source an unfiltered or minimally filtered image may look sharper, more detailed, and overall better. If printing bigger then the source of your scan, you will want a cleaner image before printing.

petopeto said:
I don't think that's in debate, you'd just prefer to do the filtering yourself.

Yes, me wishing for the availability of large unprocessed scans to do the filtering myself and to my liking was my unrealistic half-joking point when I brought this subject up.

I think we've all lost track here. I'm going to finish off the pool, and unhide a maximum of five pages worth of images a day.