Written at 20 Jul 2009 on 22:17
Hi!
While one can't upload, at least I can ask some questions here (and bug the mods ;-).
Some days ago I uploaded two pictures for Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" (the german poster and the german logo):
http://www.movieposterdb.com/movie/0780521/The-Princess-and-the-Frog.html
They were pending for several days. Apparently they were uploaded from different users at the same time. Today they went online (pictures from the user red-dog):
http://www.movieposterdb.com/poster/c83a3035
http://www.movieposterdb.com/poster/a098280d
Obviously, no criticism on red-dog - as these are high quality pictures as well.
Again, all of the uploaded versions were of good quality, I think. (Although I have to say that my own uploads were less compressed.)
But I'm curious - why in both cases my uploads were reclined. Was it because a mod just had to choose one and you couldn't spot much of a difference - or was there some problem with my uploads? Perhaps a mod can tell me if there was a problem - with the colors or something like that. Thanks in advance.
Written at 20 Jul 2009 on 23:09
I cannot tell for sure because I was not the one that approve those, but I guess there was not true difference between both pictures when both put at 100% of size. We don't look only the weight, as that doesn't always mean less compressed (any jpg can be made weighter just to look like less compressed, or is downloaded from a place where picture was put that way). Me, sometimes, when cutting white edges for example, I choose a compression that I think is the one in origin, but the result is heavier than the original (in those cases I try less compression, anyway, it was just an example that heavier is not always less compressed).
So, what we really look is quality, and having the same quality, we keep the one that weights less. I don't have both pictures now to compare, but I suppose that was the thing.
And of course, when two exact pictures are uploaded, the one that came first is the one approved (when no quality difference). Maybe the less compression in this case was not enough to be visible, so there was no true quality difference. At least, for the eye of the mod that did it.
And sorry for the approve time, I will approve some now, but you will see that the limit will be reached soon, I guess that's because people has more time for upload but some mods are out and have less time for approve. We do our best
Written at 21 Jul 2009 on 16:21
Thanks for the reply, Kommond! And of course thanks for approving pictures here. (I guess being a mod here can be a time consuming job.)
When I was talking about less compression in my uploads, I didn't mean bigger file size (that alone is not the quality indicator, I know). I really meant higher quality (less jpg artifacts). The other pictures that were approved were of overall high quality, too - but you would spot the differences if you looked at the pictures at 100% size. (Of course at the time I uploaded my versions there were no pictures yet on MoviePosterDB, so I didn't know the other versions then.)
Perhaps I should write some details. As you were not the one who approved the concerning pictures, you can't know these of course.
1) The german poster:
http://www.movieposterdb.com/poster/c83a3035
The version from red-dog was compressed with a setting of 75%. (I can tell that because I have that picture, too). My version was based on a picture that was created with a setting of 99% - I then stored it with 97% and uploaded that. Result: Higher quality, but also greater file size of course.
2) The german logo:
http://www.movieposterdb.com/poster/a098280d
The version that was approved was based on a picture that had the setting of 75% (again). Then it was rotated and stored afterwards with a setting of 99%. My version was based on a picture with 99% - I then rotated it and stored and uploaded it with 98%. Result: Higher quality AND lower file size.
(Oh, and: the different versions had the same resolution of course.)
BUT I can't exclude the possibility that there was some other problem with my pictures. If that's the case I would be glad to know. That's why I started the thread (not to criticize things).
OK, perhaps there were no problems and the determining factor was indeed the uploading time (the one that came first). You could be right on that.
Written at 21 Jul 2009 on 17:30
Of course, I was just talking in general and sorry for that. I didn't mean anything about that specific case, just want to explain you mostly how it is. Different moderators may too approve a bit different, and there are mistakes. When I talked about "numbers", the thing is that we look the pictures themselves, we cannot trust only the numbers, and that's something we do usually because some people tries to "cheat". If we look at a picture 100% size and don't see (not there aren't but we don't see) any difference we think they have the same quality, sometimes the artifacts of compression are not so easy to see and it depends on the parts of the picture.
I just think when approving no difference was seen by the mod (I don't mean there wasn't) so the first sending it was the one that get his picture approved. Of course if we really notice the difference the best one is the approved one.
We all would love to have an objetive and perfect eye to catch every little difference in pictures and always approve the best one in all factors, but we only have human eyes, we do our best but it's not always THE best.
I don't think there was any problem with your uploads, everything I saw from you was right so I don't know why this would be and exception. The time the picture arrives is obviosly a factor and if the difference it's not too obvious, we will have preferences for the first one, but of course quality is our target too.
With all this I just wanted you to know, aproximately, what we do, and trying to explain sometimes it's a bit difficult to compare qualities (and that's for new pictures, with older posters it's not only quality of the picture but flaws, quality of the scan, much more differences in colour, sometimes one has better colours and other one has better resolution, another one has big flaws but great resolution and the only one complete is lower resolution...). Once I was an uploader too, when working with your uploads only is easier to see things, but when I became moderator things became quite different too. And back here, we "have seen things you people wouldn't believe" .
Thx for sharing your doubts, and all these things are always useful for us to read and help us to try to do it better. We are of course no perfect, but we aim for it
Written at 21 Jul 2009 on 19:30
OK, fair enough. As probably the chances are low that the mod who originally compared the pictures looks here in the forum, your general explanations are appreciated and will suffice.
And you're right: Sometimes it can really get difficult to compare the quality - understandably especially for you mods when you just have the pure pictures and no accompanying info.
(But at least you can compare with all pictures that were already uploaded in full size. As normal users, we can just estimate the approx. quality from the preview picture and the file properties - unless we download the full picture of course. So, personally I only try to replace a picture if I expect a rather huge difference in quality.)
Written at 21 Jul 2009 on 21:23
Of course we compare with the already uploaded pictures at full size If you think a picture you have is better than ours, send it and we compare, you're not suppossed to download the existing version of the picture always and then, if it's better yours, upload it (it wouldn't have sense, you will always have 0 credits but when uploading non-existing posters in the database).
Written at 15 Jul 2010 on 15:15
Hi, I am New in here.... can somebody tell me ... how do I get credits with out buying them ... is there some posters that costs 0 credits ??????????????????????
Written at 15 Jul 2010 on 19:53
Hi,you can upload a poster for any movie you like & after it's approved, you'll have the credit(s) to download any poster you like.
(You have to consider the Upload Rules before trying).
Many have asked the same question before, so read the related section or post if you have any questions and you'll get your answer easier.
Good Luck & Have Fun.
Written at 16 Jul 2010 on 22:30
Drarakel, I'm almost sure I approve the Red-dog posters, and , of course, no one problem with your -always fantastic- uploads. Simply, Red-dog was speedy.
As you know very well it's almost imposible appreciate, with 200 posters waiting in headquarters, such differences you remarks.
Unfortunatly I'm really busy last month ( and it would be worst in the future)and I can't moderate more. Help is wanted....
Written at 17 Jul 2010 on 23:29
All moderators do know about the option to click on the poster thumbnail and get a quick preview of the full-size quality, right?
Written at 17 Jul 2010 on 23:55
That thread was finished a long time ago. faragondes just dug it up - don't know why he chose that thread.
Anyhow, thanks for the additional replies...
I'm also in the situation that I don't have much time at the moment (for approving AND for my own uploads). Should be able to do some work again in a few days. But additional help is surely needed.
