2009-07-15, 17:04
mark007 Wrote:Very interesting. BUT, (with my limited knowledge, correct me if I am way off), but if you are downloading jpeg's from say imdb, I don't see any reason why your software should have to worry about quality at all. OK if you load a jpeg object into memory for viewing in the gui, and then save that jpeg object to disk, maybe you would need the quality setting, but if a user wants an exact copy, i would imagine you could change the behaivour to just dump exactly what was downloaded from the website as a file... just like a wget, instead of writing that image / gui object to disk.
Put another way, downloading a jpeg from say google images, to disk, I would just save the file directly to disk, not open it in an image editor after saving, to resave with a certain quality value.
I hope you understand what I am saying here..... does what I say make sense. Can you dump exactly what you download, straight to disk as a 1:1 copy, removing the need for a quality setting at all, and we will have 1:1 copies of what was scraped.
I agree.. If a user did not ask to resize the image, then it should be the exact raw file as downloaded from the net. The quality setting should only come into play if the user asked to resize all the fanart/posters etc..