The image I should have linked to (and thought I had) for comparison is when you click on the rectangle and it brings you to this blown up square:TriciaG wrote: ↑February 8th, 2024, 7:02 pmThat one on YouTube, the image is zoomed in. The title is cut off, and the girl is even barely all in the image.A lot of our images are fuzzy on the Youtube platform, but the one I remember offhand is one of my own: Comparing archive to youtube:If it were regular size, it would probably look fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcZS1KkHd1s&t=13106s
Compared to the original, it is fuzzy.
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqmYAdtBQdx8ittzQ0eBWm16rgUv7w?e=RunXw4
I should have kept us focused on this square image for this discussion. The rectangular display that cuts off half the cover is another issue entirely.
All I'm trying to do is see if we can get our 600 x 600 images to BengjW somehow -- the ones we all already have sitting on our computers.
I don't understand Anne's problem with this easy solution, which sits at our fingertips and would make our work look a tad or two more professional, i.e., make example_itemimage.jpg the 600 x 600 size rather than a duplicate of the example.jpg image. It's not like it would cost us anything in time or money but to rename one file. As to server space, 4 times our wee little footprint in one piece of cover art is almost nothing, and in terms of Internet Archive's 145 Petabytes of storage space, uploading/displaying our 600 x 600 covers there really is "nothing". Besides, IA is well funded by grants and donations from far wealthier entities than ourselves, all with philanthropy at heart. I have absolutely no fear that this enhancement would contribute to carbon emissions a la Bitcoin farms or the Airlines industry.
https://archive.org/about/