HOW TO PREPARE NEW/MISSING SCANS OF INLAYS/COVERS/TAPES FOR THIS SITE

[pavero]

1) If you want to scan a new inlay please use at least 300dpi resolution or 600dpi as ideal.

2) The final saving format: JPG with 75%-90% quality

3) Please try to scan all parts of the inlay at once without any trimming!
Wrongly: https://www.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sin ... ssics).jpg
Correctly: https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxdb/si ... ssics).jpg

4) Cropping and rotating - for these two neccessary actions you can use e.g. IrfanView (https://www.irfanview.com/).
Edit > Crop sellection and Image > Custom/Fine Rotation.

5) Remove scratches, tears, marks, etc. These operations are for more experienced users who can work with Photoshop and similar tools. So you can skip this step if you wish.

6) How to name the files correctly.

ENRY_ID[#LABEL_ID].jpg - for titles without reverse side of the inlay
ENRY_ID[#LABEL_ID]_front.jpg - front side of the inlay/box
ENRY_ID[#LABEL_ID]_back.jpg - reverse side of the inlay/box

[#LABEL_ID] ... you don't need to use it, if we are talking about the original publisher

You can get [ENRY_ID] from URL with detailed informations about the title, e.g.:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.php?cat=96&id=718
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/7 ... /Bruce_Lee
(Bruce Lee entry_id is 718)

You can get [LABEL_ID] from URL with detailed informations about the label/publisher, e.g.:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... bel_id=815
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/list?label_id=815
(Americana Software label_id is 815)

Some examples:
718#815.jpg ... Bruce Lee inlay, re-release from Americana
718#815_2.jpg ... Bruce Lee inlay, re-release from Americana, the second/alternative inlay (_3, _4, etc.)
4179_front.jpg - Robocop - front side of the box, release from Ocean Software (the original publisher - you don't need to add label_id)
4179_back.jpg - Robocop - reverse side of the box, release from Ocean Software (the original publisher - you don't need to add label_id)
4179#4437_poster.jpg - Robocop poster, re-release from Erbe Software
4179#4437_instr.jpg or 4179#4437_instructions.jpg - Robocop scanned instructions, re-release from Erbe Software

The same logic for cassette/tapes:
718#815_tape.jpg ... Bruce Lee tape, only one side, re-release from Americana
4179_sidea.jpg - Robocop tape, side A, release from Ocean Software (the original publisher - you don't need to add label_id)
4179_sideb.jpg - Robocop tape, side B, release from Ocean Software (the original publisher - you don't need to add label_id)
XXXX_tape01.jpg, XXXX_tape02.jpg, XXXX_tape0X.jpg - for titles with multi tapes

7) Share prepared files with us in this Preservation section!


I would like to ask nicely all regular contributers if they could begin to use this new structure of filenames.
[mention]Andre Leao[/mention], [mention]TugaofSpectrum[/mention], [mention]Frankie[/mention], [mention]Ivanzx[/mention], [mention]8BitAG[/mention], [mention]wallyweek[/mention], ...

OR USE THIS NEW UPLOADING FORM!

(only with the correct naming we can process your files fully automatically!!!)


What we are looking for now:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/missing_inlays.php

[pavero]

*BEWARE! VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED*

I have founded this topic especially for all who they would like to see even cassette scans/photos at SC.

Frankly speaking cassette scans aren't so attractive as inlays for me, so I don't want to spare my free time with them too much.

But with this solution anybody can begin to collate these files.

For beginning you can process all 5000+ cassete scans from Mort's archive.
(as I do the same job with inlays)

https://archive.org/details/Spectruminl ... herdetails

[Andre Leao]

I will. But keep in good note I have a lot of stuff already scanned and scheduled to be sent, I cannot scan again...

[TugaofSpectrum]

With all respect to your ask guys, bear in mind that software preservation is a hell of work being done, tons of hours spent with TZX dumps and scans, cropping covers, etc.

The file structure naming convention is additional overhead, I will try to support on there, but bear in mind that instead of 60 scans you will get 6.

[pavero]

With all respect to your ask guys, bear in mind that software preservation is a hell of work being done, tons of hours spent with TZX dumps and scans, cropping covers, etc.

The file structure naming convention is additional overhead, I will try to support on there, but bear in mind that instead of 60 scans you will get 6.

Yes, I understand. I will also prepare an easy user-friendly form for uploading these files soon.

[pavero]

New uploading form released!
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxdb/ad ... _files.php

Now you needn't to care for correct naming of files!

Other usefull tools will follow.

[mention]Andre Leao[/mention], [mention]TugaofSpectrum[/mention], [mention]Frankie[/mention], [mention]Ivanzx[/mention], [mention]8BitAG[/mention], [mention]wallyweek[/mention], [mention]PeterJ[/mention], [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention], [mention]R-Tape[/mention]

[Andre Leao]

Thanks, I have some emails already scheduled until Februrary (and will keep it this way), but the new ones will use this form

[cmal]

New uploading form released!
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxdb/ad ... _files.php

Now you needn't to care for correct naming of files!

Other usefull tools will follow.

Hi [mention]pavero[/mention]

Thanks for the upload form. It should make things easier. I have two questions:
1. Do either you or [mention]Mort[/mention] have a list of cassette tape images that have already been scanned? I have the inlay list (mort_inlays.txt) that was sent a few weeks ago. In some cases an entry mentions "missing tape". Can I assume that a line without this text already has the tape scanned?
2. I scanned a couple of my cassettes but my scanner does not focus properly on the portion of the cassette near the protruding base. I find that carefully taken iphone photos of the cassette come out much better. Attached are three examples. Please let me know if these work for preservation purposes.

Thanks

[cmal]

Hi [mention]pavero[/mention]

I put your upload form to the test and uploaded a few of Mort's tape scans that start with "P". Please check that it's uploading okay on your end. Let me know if I need to make any changes to how I'm uploading.

Thanks

[pavero]

Hi @pavero

I put your upload form to the test and uploaded a few of Mort's tape scans that start with "P". Please check that it's uploading okay on your end. Let me know if I need to make any changes to how I'm uploading.

Thanks

Many thanks for uploading those tapes [mention]cmal[/mention]!

You can always see the history of (your) uploaded files (via 'Show history of uploaded files' button) here:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxdb/ad ... istory.php

Some notes:

1) Pac-Land - C64 versions of inlays/tapes aren't welcome here.
2) Pat the Postman/Penetrator - only one version of the tape (the better one) is needed (if there are both identical).
3) Penetrator - you probably removed the file from 04:26:01 and uploaded it again in 04:27:48 (it's correctly).

[pavero]

New uploading form released!
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxdb/ad ... _files.php

Now you needn't to care for correct naming of files!

Other usefull tools will follow.

Hi @pavero

Thanks for the upload form. It should make things easier. I have two questions:
1. Do either you or @Mort have a list of cassette tape images that have already been scanned? I have the inlay list (mort_inlays.txt) that was sent a few weeks ago. In some cases an entry mentions "missing tape". Can I assume that a line without this text already has the tape scanned?
2. I scanned a couple of my cassettes but my scanner does not focus properly on the portion of the cassette near the protruding base. I find that carefully taken iphone photos of the cassette come out much better. Attached are three examples. Please let me know if these work for preservation purposes.

1. Yes, it should be.

2. Good point! If you use a scanner the final result will be always a little bit fuzzy. So photos are probably a better choice in this case!

[cmal]

Hi @pavero

I put your upload form to the test and uploaded a few of Mort's tape scans that start with "P". Please check that it's uploading okay on your end. Let me know if I need to make any changes to how I'm uploading.

Thanks

Many thanks for uploading those tapes @cmal!

You can always see the history of (your) uploaded files (via 'Show history of uploaded files' button) here:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxdb/ad ... istory.php

Got it - I was using a button you placed on the template which let me see the upload history - really useful - Thanks for adding that!

Some notes:

1) Pac-Land - C64 versions of inlays/tapes aren't welcome here.
2) Pat the Postman/Penetrator - only one version of the tape (the better one) is needed (if there are both identical).
3) Penetrator - you probably removed the file from 04:26:01 and uploaded it again in 04:27:48 (it's correctly).

1) Going forward I'll refrain from uploading tapes which are not Sinclair based software
2) Got it - I'll only upload the better looking versions of identical tapes
3) Correct - I removed the first Penetrator entry then added it again

I'll upload some more this week since I have some time.

[cmal]

All the "P" cassette scans from [mention]Mort[/mention] have been uploaded.
NOTE: These are not yet showing up on the game pages. I think they will appear when the database gets updated next. ([mention]pavero[/mention] - is this correct?)

[pavero]

All the "P" cassette scans from @Mort have been uploaded.
NOTE: These are not yet showing up on the game pages. I think they will appear when the database gets updated next. (@pavero - is this correct?)

Great job, [mention]cmal[/mention]!

Yep, that's correct.

Processed=yes means that all files were moved to their proper folders on the server, e.g.:
https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/zxdb/si ... n_Tape.jpg

But there is still necessary to wait for regular ZXDB&SC update.

[Mort]

Also if anyone wants to check out the internet archive, I have now separated all the scans out of the main zips for each letter (apart from the monthly updates for Pavero) so everything including whats in the update is now available to download to check one at a time for differences to your versions ..

Hope this helps

Link is below to my scans (feel free to browse)
https://archive.org/details/Spectruminl ... herdetails

look to the left and check via zip download option!

the main archive including most 8 and 16bit magazines below for further adventuring ........

https://archive.org/details/@zzapmort

Enjoy , or Stay a while Stay forever as the baddie in Impossible Mission (c64 shhhh) said.

[Quazatron]

HELLO all.

I'm new here, so I'd like to start complimenting everyone here, especially all those helping this project to grow.
I confess that I have been a bit critic about Spectrum Computing on occasional facebook groups, especially in regards to intuitivity and its search engine, but I consider my critics funded on real experiences of mine since the early times of original WOS.
Anyway, critics aren't always negative and they help (all together) to improve projects and lead them to a better final result.

OK! Speaking of this particular topic, it rang me a bell as soon as I saw it.
Being a ZX Spectrum collector, I have spent more than 25 years of my life preserving High Quality game inlays and, along time, I improved my own scanning "techniques" to obtain the BEST quality possible! Let me share what I've learned about DPIs (especially 300 and 600):

1) as much as I'd like to have a high DPI scan, most Spectrum game inlays are too small for 300 or 600 DPI. This means that when we try to scan a small inlay in such high DPI resolution, we will be also scanning paper/print imperfections, including the paper fibres themselves. The result is a scan with too much noise, with lots of "grains";

2) most of the scanners we all have at home are not professional scanners, so scanning inlays in 300/600DPI will (in most of the cases) result in what we all already know so far: blurry scans, noisy scans, pale scans, etc;

3) 300/600DPI work better for bigger images with recent print quality (quality of prints back then was not as good as today's prints). Besides, scans at 200 DPI are more than enough to keep the original quality and preserve original sizes without image noises.


I'd love to start sharing what I have achieved so far and contribute my scans to Spectrum Computing. My scans are all digitally retouched, which means colours have been worked to match original inlays colours, defects removed, pixels perfected, etc. BUT I just don't know how to start contributing!
Any suggestions on how does this process of submitting inlays work for Spectrum Computing?

Here is a link for a scan of RAMPAGE. Hope it helps explaining what I meant with the 300/600 dpi arguments.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gwOIIx ... sp=sharing
NOTE: the image shall be downloaded to avoid Google Drive preview blur.

Kind regards to all creators and contributors!

[pavero]

Hi Paulo,
thanks for your post. I really appreciate your offer to participate with us.

I know your attitude about resolution of scanned inlays. I guess we discussed it some years ago on Facebook. My opinion is a little bit different. I don’t think that modern home scanners would provide some “bad” results in 300/600dpi. Respective any blur or noise is so marginal that 95% people don’t have any problem with it. Yes, I know, you are a perfectionist.

For recent 3 years we have already processed more over 3500 inlays. What I can say with sure, we won’t replace these inlays with version with lower resolution.

But I understand your pixel perfection inlays could be very interesting for many people. So, I would open a discussion, if it will be agreement to have at least two version of the same inlay at SC site. One problem could be a limited space on the hosting server, especially if your all inlays are in PNG format only (for understandable reasons).

BTW, I know your collection is really big, so there will be many inlays which are missing at SC site or their quality is really poor. If you would have the list of them, we could define our priorities.

Other opinions are welcome …
[mention]PeterJ[/mention], [mention]Mort[/mention], [mention]Juan F. Ramirez[/mention], [mention]R-Tape[/mention], [mention]cmal[/mention], [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention]

[PeterJ]

Hi [mention]Quazatron[/mention],

Welcome to the forums and thank you for offering to contribute.

As [mention]pavero[/mention] says, [mention]Mort[/mention], [mention]pavero[/mention] and others have spent a huge amount of time scanning inlays at 300/600dpi, and these won't be replaced.

Currently we store most images apart from game screens on archive.org. We know that this service could stop at anytime, and we would need to pay for additional storage with our hosting providers. For this reason I don't think its practical for us to store both versions.

I agree 100% with Pavel, that if you and he could work together and identify any images that we have which are of poor quality or not in Pavel or Mort's collection that we prioritise those.

Thanks again.

Peter

[Sparky]

This should be pinned somewhere for easy access.

[cmal]

I was unaware that the higher res scans bring out some of the imperfections and noise, and would think that this would only be visible on a really close-up zoom.

Anyway, I would be in support of having at least 2 versions of the same inlay scan- a hi-res and a low-res scan, as long as disk space allows it. Especially if the low-res scans are already done and ready for upload.
A good quality low-res scan is useful for programs like Launch-box as they load quickly and of course take up less space. If they print to the correct size then that would be an advantage too.

[PeterJ]

[mention]cmal[/mention],

Unfortunately we can't guarantee archive.org will continue forever, so we do need to remember what the additional costs would be for storing locally.

I do have a plan if this happens, and have reserves from the kind people who have donated. The service would have a limit of 250 GiB.

I don't know how much is stored on archive.org currently, but the old WoS archive on it's own is 80GB.

[cmal]

@cmal,

Unfortunately we can't guarantee archive.org will continue forever, so we do need to remember what the additional costs would be for storing locally.

Agreed, [mention]PeterJ[/mention] If it means more cost for storing locally, then it would of course need more careful consideration.

[Quazatron]

Hello again, guys!

As [mention]pavero[/mention] says, I'm an incorrigible perfecionist, but I don't intend to replace anything you already have.
With the 300/600 dpi "alert" I just wanted to contribute with my long-term experience in design and inlays scanning specifically. Some of us may have the idea that higher resolutions bring better quality but the experience I have over 25 years tell me otherwise, as stated before.

Anyway, just let me know what you guys miss in terms of inlays and I'll check what I can add. You can ONLY expect one thing from my contributions: the BEST quality and REMASTERING I could ever achieve so far!

And, [mention]PeterJ[/mention] , yes, I also agree that the priority should be the poor inlays and the missing ones!

And, [mention]cmal[/mention] , yes! It's true that high DPIs on old small inlays will increase "image noise" and paper fibres, which guys, believe me, is really BAD (especially for a perfecionist like me! LOL). It would be a huge topic discussing this with you, because this "theme" requires a lot of proof!

Waiting for your replies!

[PeterJ]

[mention]Quazatron[/mention],

Just a thought. Are these images hosting on your site?

If so, we could link directly to the image (with your agreement of course).

It's [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention] who designed the database we use (so he would know for sure), but I believe we would need the ID, release ID, and image type, along with the URL of the image of course. We can explain all this via email if you are OK with producing a CSV or spreadsheet for us and we could import it into the database. We do this with a number of other sites, and would add a credit to you on the homepage, along with a link back to your site.

Peter

[akeley]

I'm always in the "bigger is better" camp when it comes to retro scans (and I've been collecting mags, manuals, etc, for many years now). Since one of the main goals is preservation for the future generations, we should always strive to produce the highest quality and include as much data as possible.

I wouldn't say that the paper texture and similar stuff are "imperfections" - they are part of the original image, somewhat contribute to it in a way, and should also be preserved, because preservation is not about producing an idealised image but as close as possible to a 1:1 snapshot of how things were. This also applies to post processing, which imo should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Of course, this is not to say the smaller & retouched images are not needed - as was mentioned before, many people enjoy them and they are useful in certain situations. So, if possible, it'd be of course great to have both options.