RF Generation Message Board

This thread is for reporting pages with poor quality scans. In an effort to cleanup the scans for our database, let's list pages with poor quality scans and get them up to par!

Note that we are looking for high quality scans at 550px (short side) and 300 dpi. PNG and JPG are acceptable formats for submission. Here's an example of the quality we're looking for:

[img width=550 height=778]http://www.rfgeneration.com/images/games/U-031/bf/U-031-S-00270-A.jpg[/img][img width=550 height=772]http://www.rfgeneration.com/images/games/U-031/bb/U-031-S-00270-A.jpg[/img]

Top Gun: Combat Zones (Mastiff, PS2)
http://www.rfgeneration.com/cgi-bin/getinfo.pl?ID=U-072-S-09101-A

This is a great idea, I'm probably gonna break out the scanner today in that case.

Feel free to suggest changes to the image policy as well if you feel that we can get better quality images with other constraints. The policy is outdated right now.

I think a minimum of 600DPI should be required for image quality reasons.

600DPI should only make a visual difference if you're trying to enlarge the image? 600DPI scans take my scanner over a minute to produce. Not that I'm going to complain should someone submit a 600DPI scan, but the human eye has difficulty telling the difference between 300DPI and 600DPI. At that point, the extra DPI is just filling in pixels that the image roughly translates, and at the size we're looking at for images (550px short side), it's negligible.

Unless you have an image comparison that shows otherwise?

All of my scans are scanned at 600DPI. You need a new scanner, Shadow. (a faster one)

But to be honest, given RFG's current 550px limit, you can get away with 300DPI. After resizing, most of the detail is gone anyway.

I'm fine with the 550px limit, too. Replacing it would lead to inconsistencies and just be a giant hassle to replace thousands of images.

^ We already need to do that.
We have tens of thousands in the DB at 450 which was the original standard.

that should be included in this topic too then, not just the quality but the proper dimensions.

Oh really? Wow, I didn't know that. Good I'm keeping my original scans then, in case the standard gets changed again. ;)

Would the tech guys be able to whip up a script to detect which existing scans were wrong dimensions?
Or would that be too taxing for them and/or the site?

Shouldn't be too difficult, but it would slow down the site while the script was running. We can fire it off one night to check the file attributes.

Cool deal.
Yaaay another good idea.
Shame that is all i am good for...

http://www.rfgeneration.com/cgi-bin/getinfo.pl?ID=E-027-S-01550-A&type=gs

Is that a bad scan? If so why?

Probably because it's too small a scan, which makes reading the part number slightly difficult.

It does not meet size requirements and 99.9% of NES scans probably are just the face of the cart.

Now that I've found a way to resize my scans that actually look good, I'll go through and submit scans for anything that I have that somehow doesn't already have an image and then I'll go back and see if there's anything that already has an image that could use a new one.

All my boxes that I do have are in great condition except for my N64 boxes which...have seen better days.

Want to know if it's possible to use images from other websites, that doesn't have copy protection or similar protection.

For instance, in segaretro they have a text about the use of images, that i believe it says that anybody can use the image for other "fair" porpuses. Here is the text and link: http://segaretro.org/File:GGboxBack.JPG

This image is a scan, photo or promotional image of a Sega Game Gear video game box. Scans are free to use under fair use. All copyright to this image is held by the companies who developed and published this game. Sega of America and Sega.com expressly disclaims any obligation, responsibility and/or liability with respect to any content or accuracy of information contained on this website.


Do you guys think we can use some of the images, and maybe in the credits of the image maybe put SEGARETRO?

If you "created" and "own" the image you can submit it.

If another websites policy is that anyone can take and use any image for "fair purposes" that is excellent.

Our policy however is we will only accept images from users who have created them. Taking the works of others (in my eyes) is theft.
Additionally if you take the time to enter the info from and take scans of an item you actually own it greatly reduces the chance of it being inaccurate.

OK, thanks for the reply.

I will submit only the games i have.

Worth noting, but fake images abound on the web. GameFAQs and mobygames have fake images (GameFAQs more often than not).

There are also cases that the same cart/game/screenshot is the same for several variations, especially when we have just a label variation on the box, it's possible to "copy" images from games to another ones ??

And if possible retain the credits for the previous "owner" of the images

I get it, and when I see a scan that isn't that great in quality or it's a damaged label, I replace it (replaced Thunder Fox on Genesis last night). However, there have been instances in the past where I have submitted an image for a game that has not image and it has been rejected. White labels and carts can be especially tricky in some instances and this was the case with my scan.  Just my opinion, but let's replace scans with higher quality of course, but at the same time, some image is better than no image IMO.

This is something not all users have the option to do. For example, I can't edit credits at this level. If you have a certain game/manual whatever that is the exact same across variations, you can go ahead and submit the same image multiple times. Just make sure the UPC/Part Number and other small things match.

I just checked that i can add the credits for the owner of the image, that's help alot in submit images, i just can grab the image from another variation and re-submit in the new variation if they are the same. Thanks for the reply @Flee

It's been a while since I last had the time and access to do any scanning. And all my replacement scans got rejected.

[img width=550 height=637]http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/fd15/d2epea2ptnw0fh5zg.jpg[/img] [img width=550 height=633]http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/fe10/zrzwi4z5pnzx3lpzg.jpg[/img]

Here's the one in the DB and my own scan. It's never been a problem before, so has there been some change in policy over the last year?

I rejected two of your image submissions because I didn't think the originals were "low quality" enough to warrant replacement.  I also thought your replacement images look a little too much like mock-up stock images.

This isn't a change in site policy, but the subjective opinion of the approver.  I didn't think it was fair to replace someone else's work without good cause.

I got you, resubmit and I'll approve them.

I can understand being suspicious of near perfect quality images, but I just did a quick google search and did not find any PEGI covers of the game without watermarks that would match up with his scans. Also, generally speaking, site regulars can be trusted. As for what justifies replacement, I think lower quality images are supposed to be replaced, otherwise overwriting old images wouldn't even be a feature. Past image submitters are not removed from the credits, so their efforts aren't ignored either.

I didn't say Kaysow's images were fake.  I said they LOOK fake.  As a variant collector I prefer seeing images that look like real products rather than something cooked up by a marketing department.

It’s my image being replaced here so I’d like to say I’m always happy for my images to be replaced with a higher quality image (if the image is legit of course).

I agree with Raidou here in the fact that these games are typically more pastel in color. I'm positive the other is not fake, but the image seems darker in color in comparison to what these games typically appear.

However, I understand the desire and need to replace bad images and think this is something that we should certainly continue to do. I appreciate the efforts of the submitter and trying to make our images and sight better. Perhaps we need to create some sort of policy and communication procedure between the submitter and approver. This is not my area of expertise on the site, so I would prefer the Duke weigh in. Just my two cents.

Certainly everyone involved in this conversation wants to make RFG the best game DB out there, so I'm glad we're all focused on that end.

There are things to consider in terms of when an image deserves replacement, such as resolution, condition of material scanned, and scan fidelity. I think it would be hard to quantify this in a policy, as the first two conditions are objective, and the last is subjective. I'm willing to trust our approvers to do their work without micromanaging this, and I would just encourage our approvers to communicate why you make a rejection thoroughly. By doing this, we can communicate our position, without discouraging submissions in the future.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. My scanner is pretty old and slow (an inlay takes 4-5 minutes at 800dpi) so to get consistent lighting and good sharpness I usually scan after sundown. That might be why it appears darker than the average scan.

I really appreciate you taking the time to add to the DB kaysow, especially if you're working around a temperamental scanner. ;)

If anyone is approving Kaysow's replacement scans please watch out for extra media replacements because these won't overwrite the inferior version of the scan, which must be deleted manually.

If you cant delete images please leave these in the queue for someone who can.

I just got this and see the images we have are one with stickers on it. Mine has never had a sticker on it and is in very good shape. Should I take some new scans of it?

http://www.rfgeneration.com/cgi-bin/getinfo.pl?ID=U-131-S-01360-A

Absolutely! We always encourage replacing images with better scans.

So should I just add them as usual like when there is a game that doesn't have any?

Or you could just take these here now and change them out.

You basically just go on to the game page and submit scans as usual. When it pulls up the image already there will pop up as well. Just select your file and submit it and that image will be replaced. Make sure that your image is at least 550 pixels on the longest side, which will be vertical in this case.

It is done. I will keep an eye out for anymore.

Merchant added stickers are the devils footprints are they not?  :evilsad:

Thank you!

Uh...
http://www.rfgeneration.com/PHP/about.php?action=policies;id=4

No problems I knew he fudged up what he was saying and meant short side. I have done 150-180 scan uploads, this was just the first time I replaced old ones.

Not poor quality scans but missing. There are various missing scans/photos around the US athletic world game and family fun fitness hardware. So if any one can provide any of the following please submit:

• Family fun fitness - front and back box scans, hardware image. An original athletic world cart and manual (FFF branding) can also be submitted as extra media
• Athletic World (original FFF branding) - manual scan missing. Front and back of FFF box can also be submitted as front and back images
• Athletic World (Power pad rebrand - circle seal) - cart scan missing. This will have the code NES-AW-USA and no FFF branding.
• Athletic World (PP rebrand - oval seal) - manual scan missing. This will have the code NES-AW-USA-1

Would be great if anyone does have these images they can submit. Thanks

Whoops! Oh well, mine have been going through. Will remedy for future subs

Bumping this cus it happened to instantly get pushed back a page