There is an optimal size (file, and image) for Album Art?

[araxhiel]

Hi,

Well, as title says, there is an optimal file size, and/or image size for album art? Performace-wise speaking.

I ask this because I am a heavy user of the Album Art pane, and from time to time I notice that some images take a little bit more of time to be displayed/loaded when navigating through my collection, while few more take more than time to be displayed...

I'm already aware that, according to another post (https://getwacup.com/community/index.php/topic,776.msg4886.html#msg4886), there are a lot of factor to keep in mind regarding how images are handled, but still I was wondering if there is something like a "sweet spot" for image "specifications", or even configurations.

For example, ignoring the fact (for the moment) that most album art are quite different from each other (small, big, PNGs, or JPGs), I tend to embed the image on the audio file, but not quite sure if that means that WACUP will do an additional effort/require more resources than if I use the "folder.jpg" file that is inside each folder.... Or vice versa.

Also, additional to that, is the fact that I have used a very, ahem, diverse set of images ranging from JPGs, 250x250, and a few kb of size, to a couple of images that are 2000x2000 (if not bigger), with a size of 1, or 2 Mb (can't recall right now)... So, I'm thinking that also achieving some consistency would help.

Thanks in advance.

[Dr.Flay]

As the title says there is, there is.
However you seem to be mixing a statement with a question.

Are you saying there is one, or asking if there is one ?
If you are asking then no not really.
Some album art is exactly square and some rectangular, hence the album art popup window can accommodate any ratio you have.
The size depends on the resolution of your display and if you prefer to see it at 100% scale, or scaled down from as big as you can find.

Me I opt for a large high quality image in the folder with the name cover.* or front.* or folder.* or the album name, and if I embed them I use medium sized images usually over 512x512 saved as JPG so they don't bloat the music files too much.

[dro]

The difference between loading from an external image file vs embedded is generally negligible as embedded is attempted first before external (subject to the artwork reading configuration) & the same goes depending on the image format where there is a difference but it's often hard to detect unless you're getting into the many 1000x1000 image sizes.

600x600 is what I try to use in the live cached versions as that's a decent trade-off between the decoded memory size & how long it takes to render & how large things tend to be sized to on display without loosing any obvious graphic detail.

Once you start going beyond 1000x1000 (but can be lower depending on the machine specifications) then the time to decode & render starts to become more noticeable in things starting to lag / just feel a bit off. So I'd just go with what you're happy with against your needs.

-dro

[araxhiel]

Hi all,

Thank you both for the replies.

As the title says there is, there is.
However you seem to be mixing a statement with a question.

Damn

Yeah... I must admit that from time to time I had some grammar issues here and there... I'm trying to be more conscious about them, but as we can see, I need to do a better effort. I really appreciate that you have pointed out that mistake.

But, yeah, it was supposed to be a question.

Me I opt for a large high quality image in the folder with the name cover.* or front.* or folder.* or the album name, and if I embed them I use medium sized images usually over 512x512 saved as JPG so they don't bloat the music files too much.

600x600 is what I try to use in the live cached versions as that's a decent trade-off between the decoded memory size & how long it takes to render & how large things tend to be sized to on display without loosing any obvious graphic detail.

Being honest, both approaches are quite similar to I had in mind (but wasn't so sure about it) as I was thinking something like 500x500 images, so it's good to know that I was going into the right direction (for saying something). One thing that I was not taking into account was the format (e.g. PNG vs JPG), thanks for reminding me about that detail.

Once again, thanks for the replies.

Kind regards.