Embeded Album Art

[DrO]

i was, though looks like i'd managed to get the wrong version downloaded. however now i have the correct file, it matches with my observation about dpi change and re-encoding impact with jpeg files.

[MrSinatra]

when i drag and drop, or save an image from a browser to my local files, its an exact copy, even if i rename it during a "save as".

like i said earlier, i understand why winamp automatically reduces filesize under the hood, but it would be nice to have an option to defeat it.

i am still curious as to how winamp does things under the hood? does it just say "reduce filesize 20%" to everything, or what?

[DrO]

I wonder if the Winamp devs could say what configuration they set for the default cover art directory output.

would just be jpeg from the input image format once it's been read in and re-encoded to jepg (even if it was jpeg already - which is the main crux of the issue).

the next beta will have a partial fix for the issue where it'll attempt to preserve the original file data when setting a jpeg as the cover-art i.e. original and the created cover jpeg file should be the same.

there's a number of other changes which need to be made to make the options on the right of the dialog obey this behaviour as well especially with the 'copy' and 'save as' options instead of providing the decoded versions of the image data as it currently does (which i guess made some sort of sense when the feature was added).

alas i need to find more time to be able to look into and further resolve the remaining deficiencies with the current handling (which will just be fixing it to preserve original image data, nothing else involving functionality changes).

[Batter Pudding]

when i drag and drop, or save an image from a browser to my local files, its an exact copy, even if i rename it during a "save as".

like i said earlier, i understand why winamp automatically reduces filesize under the hood, but it would be nice to have an option to defeat it.

i am still curious as to how winamp does things under the hood? does it just say "reduce filesize 20%" to everything, or what?

Imagine an MP3 re-saved as an MP3 without checking on the settings. It is not going to be a "shrink by 20%" but a change in dpi of the image as noted by DrO.

I don't know how the devs do things, but you understand MP3 compression and the options. So may be worth a read on JPEG as you can see there are a lot of different factors that affect an image's file size. Then install something like IrfanView and play with the settings in the SaveAs dialog to see the changes for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

[MrSinatra]

yes, i follow, and i spoke sloppily. i suppose what i was asking is what settings exactly is winamp using to adjust filesize? do they depend on the source image? or are they static, meaning always reduce dpi 20% or somthing like that? i just find the behavior a bit odd and unexpected to begin with, altho i can see where someone might have deemed it wise at one time.

i have used infraview in the past, handy utility.

[lostinsound]

I'm pretty sure that changing the dpi doesn't change the file size. I think it just changes the size of the image if you were to print it out. I can take the same image and save it with two different dpi's and the file size is exactly the same.

Plus I gave Winamp a 72 dpi image and also the 126 dpi image, and in both cases Winamp changed the image to 96 dpi with a large reduction in file size. I think it just has to do with using a lower compression ratio.

[MrSinatra]

I'm pretty sure that changing the dpi doesn't change the file size. I think it just changes the size of the image if you were to print it out. I can take the same image and save it with two different dpi's and the file size is exactly the same.

Plus I gave Winamp a 72 dpi image and also the 126 dpi image, and in both cases Winamp changed the image to 96 dpi with a large reduction in file size. I think it just has to do with using a lower compression ratio.

interesting. but wouldn't it be a higher compression ratio = smaller filesize or do i have it backwards?

[lostinsound]

interesting. but wouldn't it be a higher compression ratio = smaller filesize or do i have it backwards?

No you have it right, I switched it around. I meant to say higher compression ratio, i.e. lower quality and smaller file size.

[Batter Pudding]

yes, i follow, and i spoke sloppily. i suppose what i was asking is what settings exactly is winamp using to adjust filesize? do they depend on the source image? or are they static, meaning always reduce dpi 20% or somthing like that? i just find the behavior a bit odd and unexpected to begin with, altho i can see where someone might have deemed it wise at one time.

Notice that in IrfanView when you do a Save As / JPEG it always uses the same settings as last time. Ignoring the quality of the original source file.

My guess will be that the Winamp code when it was written had a developer taking a random choice of quality levels and picking that as a default. I remember my screen 15 years ago barely able to show a 1024x768 full screen - so it would have made sense at the time for highly compressed JPEGs.

If you think about it this makes sense as the dialog in Winamp to select artwork can handle other file types like Bitmaps, PNG, Gif, etc. Which would imply there was no reason to assume a link between the load and the save routines. Unlike your "drag and drop" example.

[DrO]

artwork support only got added in 2007 and tbh i've not bothered to look into what the jpeg image read/write code is doing (so there will not be an answer to the vague questions on what is or isn't going on) as it doesn't really matter when the issue is setting a new jpeg as the cover art is decoded and re-encoded instead of just saving the raw image data from the source.

[Batter Pudding]

artwork support only got added in 2007 and tbh i've not bothered to look into what the jpeg image read/write code is doing (so there will not be an answer to the vague questions on what is or isn't going on) as it doesn't really matter when the issue is setting a new jpeg as the cover art is decoded and re-encoded instead of just saving the raw image data from the source.

I personally don't expect it to get looked into as IMHO it works fine. Does the job perfect for my needs at the moment, and if I want better art then I copy art direct to the album folder. Winamp is flexible enough to handle all options.

I get a feeling you are a little busy with this new Beta Release. Thanks for that

[MrSinatra]

its not really an issue for me, in the sense that i never used the winamp UI to do this b/c it did multiple things, re: this, i didn't like. however, its a bit of a stretch to complement winamp for being flexible for allowing me to save from browser to folder in the OS.

but my only objection, or perhaps concern is a better word, is that winamp reduces image quality and apparently changes other specs without giving the user any indication that this is so, unless they actually see the difference. i don't object to the function, it could be useful esp if the controls/settings were exposed to the user via ini, but to do it as a mandatory and hidden thing, it strikes me as inappropriate.

[Batter Pudding]

however, its a bit of a stretch to complement winamp for being flexible for allowing me to save from browser to folder in the OS.

That is not what I said. I meant that if I want extra fancy artwork I use an external method. i.e. I find my own art and save it myself to the album folder. "winamp being flexible" meant that it will use any art it finds, based on a known a published order. Unlike a locked in iTunes that would insist on doing it The Apple Way or No Way.

but my only objection, or perhaps concern is a better word, is that winamp reduces image quality and apparently changes other specs without giving the user any indication that this is so, unless they actually see the difference. i don't object to the function, it could be useful esp if the controls/settings were exposed to the user via ini, but to do it as a mandatory and hidden thing, it strikes me as inappropriate.

It is the way it has always been, and no one has been forced to use it. As you say yourself you use other tools to do this job.

IMHO - good enough is good enough. Winamp is about music, not art. The majority of people would not have a clue about JPEG compression settings. It is why JPEG options dialogs are nearly always hidden by default (see IrfanView for a good example)

If I want high quality artwork, then I pick up the original vinyl cover and look at that.

[thinktink]

New version attached with even mo-betta-teh-mo-bettaness. The 7z includes not just the installer but also a WASABI header file for another developer to create a front-end if they wanted and an example config file that shows the default "quality" value for the JPEG image writing handler in Winamp (at least as of this post.)

[EDIT/]
Note: You will need to close all running instances of Winamp to install the new version.

[MrSinatra]

It is the way it has always been

then it has always been inappropriate.

IMHO - good enough is good enough. Winamp is about music, not art. The majority of people would not have a clue about JPEG compression settings.

the majority of people don't know about lame compression settings either, but if winamp were silently re-encoding music files on import, esp to lesser settings, i think you would find that objectionable, no?

yes, its not exactly the same, since music is the point, but i think i have a point as well. i'm not crying foul over this, its not a huge deal, i'm just pointing it out. most people are unaware of this behavior.

If I want high quality artwork, then I pick up the original vinyl cover and look at that.

we agree on that. i have several framed vinyl covers, look great on the wall imo.