Quote:
Originally Posted by jackie_w
@chaley,
I've sent the debug log from my Android alter-ego id. I also include here a link to 4 screenshots of Book Details of the same book. Actual calibre cover size 669x1024.
Galaxy Note3 (1080x1920) portrait - BD cover size Medium - actual size 31x47mm of total screen size 71x125mm
Galaxy Note3 (1080x1920) portrait - BD cover size Large - actual size 41x63mm of total screen size 71x125mm
Galaxy TabPRO 8.4 (1600x2560) portrait - cover size Large - actual size 29x45mm of total screen size 113x180mm
Galaxy TabPRO 8.4 (1600x2560) landscape - cover size Large - actual size 29x45mm of total screen size 180x113mm
I'm not sure of the right approach either  merely food for thought. If it's a choice between a smaller sharper image or a bigger fuzzier image I think I'd choose the former, but as usual with these things, it's not until you've tried both that the personal 'winner' emerges.
So far I've been using CC in portrait on the tablet. Not necessarily because it's better but because it 'feels right' because I'm so used to CC on the phone. |
A "standard" android device has a DPI of 160. This is arbitrary, chosen by Google simply as a value to allow scaling. Such a device would have a "density" of 1. My N7 has a density of 1.331 meaning it has a DPI of 213 (its real value is 216). Your TabPRO (the 8.9 version?) is reporting has a density of 2, so its DPI should be 320. It is really 360, and I don't know why it is reporting a smaller density number.
A "large" CC cover is 320x320 preserving aspect ratio, so the height will win. On your device, a large cover will consume 640x?, or 4 real pixels per image pixel. On my N7 a large cover will be 426x?, which turns out to be 50mm hight. A cover on your TabPRO should be approximately the same physical height as a cover on my N7, and indeed they are.
All this is in preparation for an example. I added an "Extra large" cover spec with a size of 400 "standard" pixels, but used the 320x320 cover to generate it. That means that on my N7 the expansion is no longer 1.331 but is instead 1.665, resulting in a displayed cover size of 666x?.
Here are examples of two covers. The original covers in calibre were both larger than 320x320, so were downscaled. The screen captures are actual size showing medium, large, and extra large covers. My take: on my device the extra large cover isn't bad. It doesn't seem to have more artifacts than the large cover. Of course, a 400x400 downloaded cover would be sharper, but I am not convinced that the cost is worth it. YMMV.