Posts: 233
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
jtap06
Senior Member
Posts: 233
Hi,
Like i'm sure many of you are, I am in the process of replacing all of my posters with high-resolution ones per Stark's release. My question is, would it be beneficial to resize them down to 1080x7-- rather than leave them at 1500x1000?
Other than the obvious benefit of lower file size, would there be any negative effect in XBMC?
Thanks!
Posts: 25
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation:
0
Choix
Junior Member
Posts: 25
2009-03-07, 04:28
(This post was last modified: 2009-03-07, 04:33 by Choix.)
Well that really depends on what TV/Monitor resolution you plan on viewing these on doesn't it?
If you are viewing images at that resolution on a wide screen TV then the images will be warped so it would be better to resize & crop the images in that instance.
However if you are just asking if Stark will resize your current images to fit no matter what your TV/Monitor resolution then I would assume it would since the default XBMC & the current Aeon skin both already do that.
Just don't forget HD resolutions are 1280 x 720 & 1920 x 1080 pixels, so for 1080p backdrops you would actually need to scale up your images and they will become pixelated.
Posts: 2,764
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
5
paul
Posting Freak
Posts: 2,764
But surely if you downsize them you are defeating the object aren't you as you will lose Quality otherwise why have them in 1500x1000 in the first place or have i missed something?
XBMC Frodo 12 - Windows 7 - Asrock Ion 330HT - Aeon Nox
Posts: 45
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
The confusion above stems from the order you put the image dimensions. When discussing dimensions - it is usually proper to give width then height. So 1000X1500 would mean 1000 pixels wide by 1500 pixels high. So, in the first post, it would seem that you are talking about more fanart type images rather than posters as the dimensions you give are wider than they are taller.
Anyhow, I digress, if djh said the resolution is 1:1.5 then the only benefit to resizing them is memory and speed. The larger image takes up more memory space (both physical and temporary). So, a smaller file (resized to 1080p hieght and saved at the same lossy compression level) should result in a smaller file. If you have a weak system, this might result in a noticable increase in performance of walking through your media browser in Plex/XBMC.
BUT --
Resizing these images and resaving them is like any other compression routine to a lossy format ... you WILL lose quality (whether it is apparent to the naked eye or not). The compression of a lossy to a lossy is another level of degredation of the source - tantamount to transcoding a 192kbs MP3 to a 128kbs MP3. The good news is that some of that quality loss will be thwarted by the shrinking of the image and thus hide some of the compression artifacts (which should be negligable, but there).
Personally, I would leave the image as is unless you find that you are actually experiencing slow down while browsing your library. None of the images should be over 1MB and most are under 750kb. I think that almost any system should be able to run with that. I just don't see this being that much of a resource hog.
Posts: 2,087
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation:
92
djh_
Aeon Project Founder
Posts: 2,087
This has probably been covered already, but remember that the thumbnail cache has no bearing on the high-def thumbnails shown in the info pages. You can run with a thumbnail cache size of as low as 400 without any real loss in quality elsewhere. I prefer 500, though, because I'm like that and there's no performance hit.
Anything higher would be framerate suicide.
Posts: 299
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
Make sure you are not replacing your current thumbnails, just add the high res image in to your movie folder. -big.png
Posts: 980
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
5
currently it is like this:
movie.avi
movie.tbn
movie-fanart.jpg
movie.avi-big.png (this must have a png extention)
Posts: 230
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
-3
pretty sure it needs to tail the exact name with -big.png