Ferneu

Perhaps you guys could simply add a button right beside the "ads extracted" and, when that button is clicked, it could show the longer explanation as a tooltip or pop-up or in whatever other way you non-artistic challenged people think it would look good. As for me, now that I know what it means, I'm fine with it. Well, not really FINE FINE, but, you know, I can live with it . Probably...

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I wasn't aware of any of that. I knew you were still as awesome as thought you always were. Angry. But awesome!

I am terribly sorry if my post sounded disrespectful. That was definitely not my intention. When I saw the skater guy in the cover I thought "hey, that is Skate Or Die! That is the second game I got when I got my NES!!!" And then I clicked on the link to see if the post had a content summary, so I could see what was inside without having to download the magazine. I just wanted to confirm it really was Skate Or Die. And the post had a content summary (you are awesome!!!) and it really was Skate Or Die! I kept reading the whole thing and then... you see... I think this is what might have thrown me off https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/e4gdca5rar4.jpg That purple guy over there, in that screenshot, that one showing the world he has at least two fingers, seems to be saying "ads are extracted" Now, just because there is an animated image saying that the ads were extracted, it does not mean that the ads were extracted. But you must confess, that is fu..... confusing! (got it? David Chappelle reference? I bet you got it, alright :) ) But I forgive you. And not only because I am right and you are wrong and I am just that awesome, but because you are right too. Which is kind of impressive when you think about it. A paradox of sorts. The problem here is that when I posted, I read only what was written on this post here. Because, well, I was talking about this post. And on this post here there is not a single mention of ads. Well except that purple guy. I think. I could be wrong. I'm often wrong. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure I am right here. I'm probably wrong again... but at this point I'm just going to keep writing, for two reasons: 1. so you do not mingle me with the 20 chars per message social media crowd. 2. it is probably really ticking you off knowing that you really weren't THAT RIGHT in the first place. Even though you kind of were. But let's keep that last part between us and don't tell that to you, so I can continue to annoy you. Anyway, I really hope I haven't offended you. It was never my intention. I know you are one of the top contributors here, and have been since I first discovered this site I don't know how many years ago. Please understand that I really appreciate all the work and effort and hours you've spend giving us awesome scans for free. I really do. And just so you know how far back my appreciation for your efforts go, I hope you are not still using CDisplay to read the mags. See? I still remember that discussion! And I remembered that because it's been a while since I'm trying to find some free time to propose a change that will save Retromags a lot of money. I was going to do it this weekend but, in respect of your efforts and general awesomeness, I'll give you and your CDisplay a couple more days. PS: you are awesome and I am very thankful for everything you've ever done for this site.

Thanks! But I really wish you had left the ads. At least there is an alternate version which seems to have them.

Ah... the very first game magazine I bought in my life. I still remember everything about it. We had gone to the beach during the end of the year school break and, after seeing an ad for this mag on TV, I went to the nearest bookstall and got it. Awesome!

Indeed! The only sitcom with a laugh track that was actually funny. Well played, sir. Well played.

You are awesome!

WOW! "the first issue of EGM is actually Buyers Guide. Which in turn is not the really the first issue because EGP came before it. And if you dig a little bit deeper you will also notice ... and ... and ... and therefore we can safely conclude that Steve Harris shot Kennedy and knows where Hoffa was burried." Thanks for all the help. You guys are awesome! PS: you guys just gave me a lot of cool information and I was going to suggest the creation of a new field in the database where things like this could be added. Then I went to the database entry itself and saw that there is already a "Notable Stuff" item inside the contents and, had I read that before creating this topic, I would have saved us all a lot of typing PS2: in my defense, I thought the contents of the... contents would have only... the contents. You tricked me! PS3: if you were asking me, I'd vote to separate the "Notable Stuff" in a new field, instead of leaving it inside the "Contents." Anyway, I'm glad all those cool tidbits exist and are associated with the magazine itself inside the DB, now that I know where to look for it...

I was reading EGM #1 and, even though there is no number in the cover or anywhere else, it seems to keep reffering to itself as if was issue #2. And the last page literally says "strap yourself in for the next invasion as the third issue of Eletronic Gaming Montly hits the stands..." So, is it really issue #1? Or is it #2. Maybe the magazine changed names between #1 and #2 and that is the cause of the confusion? If so, anyone knows the name the previous issue was published as?

Just try to make sure what exactly is being saved inside those TIFFs. Because a TIFF is pretty much a container, i.e., think of it as a zip, rar or pdf file. It can store lossless images, which is what we need in order to test other formats, like webp (just to make kitsunebi mad) but it can also store jpgs. So, unless you are careful, you may end up with just a TIFF that simply contains a jpg inside of it Anyway, if you are not sure, just scan one page and send the TIFF to me. I can check it out and tell you what is going on inside of it. As for the whole dpi/ppi discussion, I am with kitsunebi. Don't get me wrong, I am all for perfect preservation, and if increasing the scanning resolution would get more data from the pages, I would say go for it. Even if it is just to upload it somewhere else, somewhere that can store those giant files, and then downscale it again so it can be uploaded here. But if kitsunebi tests are accurate, then it seems 300somethingPI is more than enough. If you guys are already capturing all the data in the page, increasing the resolution will only give us bigger files. I believe this is what kitsunebi is trying to say - if you take a lens or use your super vision to look at the magazine page and you see the following dots RWGWB And then you look at the image you scanned and see exactly the same colored dots, then it means you've already captured all the data that was available on that page. Increasing the resolution will only result in RRWWGGWWBB Which is just the same information. So you will just be wasting disk space without adding anything. Now, if your high-resolution scans can somehow capture additional information, then go for it. The "how horrible early scanned images look today on our bigger monitors" concern is valid, but only if the scans did not capture all the information. If they did, then it is just a matter of telling your image viewer software to resize the image, in case it is too small. No need to pre-upscale them. It will only waste disk space. And remember that CSI software is magic and not available in the real world - if the information is not there, it won't appear. I bet the CSI image viewer is capable of showing the numbers of those cards in those Duke Nukem pictures...

I didn't know your scanner only supported jpg as the output format. That would have saved us a lot of typing I was assuming it was possible to choose the output format of the scanned image. Only then testing other formats would make any sense. It is just like you said - if source the image already has all the compression artifacts, in the best case scenario the only thing we could hope to achieve would be reducing the file size. But the most likely scenario would be us just making it look even worse. Unless, of course, we had that magical piece of software they use on CSI which can stretch a 2x2 pixel image to 4K and then allow them to zoom in and see things on a molecular level

your fingers type "no", but I know your heart is saying"yes" please understand that I am not trying to force you to change your workflow and, in case it is not clear, let me tell you how much your efforts are appreciated. Please, PLEASE, don't take this conversation the wrong way. With that out of the way, here is how you could perform some tests: after editing your scans on Photoshop, you could use the official cwebp to convert your raws (PNG maybe?) to webp. It is quite simple to use. As simple as cwebp -q 80 image.png -o image.webp Then, since your image viewer does not support webp, you could use a browse to view the resulting image. And then you could try different "quality" values, instead of that 80 I used as an example and compare the results. Please note that I am not trying to enforce webp as a new standard or anything like that. In fact, I don't even know if it will produce better results. But since you are worried about the readability of your scans, I thought, well, why not suggest it to him. At least he would have an extra tool in his arsenal, instead of simply "brute-forcing" giant resolutions while sticking to outdated formats. I also would like to add that I really appreciate your efforts. I am studying Japanese right now and I do agree that non-natives have a hard time with kanjis that are not perfectly crystal clear. Heck, we already have a hard time when we can clearly identify the bloody pictogram PS: may I ask the name of the software you use to view images? I thought most of them had support for webp by now. It is only 10 years old. It is older than your Photoshop hehe!

@E-Day it was either you or him (the one I asked), but I don't remember right now. Anyway, the reason I suggested kitsunebi to give it a try, instead of asking him to give me some raw samples, is that right now I am nowhere near a machine where I can perform the tests. But I promise to bother you guys again later. I just gotta see how those "new" encoders perform. Even if they are never accepted, I still got to do it. For the science!!! @kitsunebi I understand what you are saying. But then again, if nobody ever uses a newer format and always stick with jpg, nobody will ever feel the need to add support to anything other than jpgs in their apps. But then again (inside a "but then again" :)), I remember Google tried to push webp by making it the default on Chrome, and people rejected it like plague (for the same reasons you gave which, don't get me wrong, are quite reasonable). So, if even Google couldn't convince people, who am I to try In the end it is just like the gif plague. Pretty much every browser support something better, but some people keep insisting on uploading gigabytes of low-res 8bit animations that could have been easily replaced by high-res 24bpp formats that use 10x less bandwidth. PS: maybe you could give webp another try? Even if you are not going to use it, just to see how it fares. You are already doing a bunch of tests...

This might be a good case to test "newer" compression formats. Maybe some of them can improve the 2200px quality, or maybe give us a 6000+px scan a smaller size. Sometime ago I asked one uploader for raw files so I could run some tests. Either he forgot or I somehow missed his reply. Anyway, may I suggest you give formats like webP, FLIF and HEIF a try? Some of them support both lossy and lossless compression. I'd test both.