Odd formatting

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Stripping down image sizes is the wrong approach for the very same reason that DRM is wrong: it causes you to never be free of the company you buy from, because you will need to redownload each and every book you have, any time you upgrade or switch your device, either to get the correct image size, or to get the book to work.

What complete and utter nonsense.

What does it matter if a book is 10MB in size because of images? The library will take up around 6GB. So what? A SINGLE 5 minute song in FLAC format takes up around 25MB, an album being 350MB+, easily. Installing a game on a computer nowadays takes op 30-60GB. The average computer nowadays has 500GB+ of storage space (if you have a very cheap off-the shelf desktop), and every phone that is not ultra-budget has 16-32GB on board, and/or an SD-card slot.

I don't waste disk space on music. I don't play computer games much (but I believe I can find games with a more realistic footprint). My old computer works just fine thankyouverymuch despite not being up to your standards. And some people actually like to read on E-Ink devices.

It would be very easy for Amazon to stick 16GB+ into an e-ink Kindle. Kobo's can actually be upgraded by cloning the internal SD-card to a larger one and extending the partitions. So, there is no reason to sell an e-reader with less than 16GB of storage space, which would easily accommodate 1000-1500 of my very large books, which is plenty for any but the very heaviest readers; the device stores up to 2,5 times the number of books read by a normal reader. (And this is assuming that every book contains huge covers, maps, and illustrations, which will not be the case.)

Can they stick it into the thousands upon thousands of current devices?
Can you manage to internalize that some people don't give a damn about the images?
(Maps, *maybe*. The vast majority of images in my ebooks aren't maps. And I never look at maps. )

Thus, the only reason making the size of an e-book an issue is because manufacturers put only 2-4GB in an e-reader, and use very slow USB controllers. Why can't my Kindle transfer ebooks at a rate of 25MB+ a second (even over USB2)? My 16GB USB-stick, costing $10 at a grocery store can. The only reason is that Amazon, and other manufacturers have something to advertise with: "Transfers ebooks 30% faster!", "Now with 4GB instead of 2GB!" and so on.

Alternatively, becase they use the lowest tech that gets the job done, and they care even less than I do (which is saying something!) about the marginal handful of people who obsess over maps.

...

...

Basically, people are different, choice is awesome, be happy you can tune your ebooks and I'll be happy that they don't default to "pedantic nitpicker" mode.

Everyone wins once you stop assuming anything has to be the One True Way, and acknowledge that opinions differ.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What complete and utter nonsense.

It isn't. If the books are tailored to the device that is downloading them, you will need to redownload them if you get a new device, or your books will be sub-optimal.

My old computer works just fine thankyouverymuch despite not being up to your standards. And some people actually like to read on E-Ink devices.

My own computer meets those standards I have described, and it's 8 years old. Nowadays, even current ultra-budget computers meet them, at least in the Netherlands.

Can they stick it into the thousands upon thousands of current devices?

No, but that's no reason to not put more memory, storage, or processing power into newer devices.

Alternatively, becase they use the lowest tech that gets the job done, and they care even less than I do (which is saying something!) about the marginal handful of people who obsess over maps.

I'm not talking about maps only. I'm talking about any other illustrations as well. At this point in time, an e-reader is no match for a paper book when it comes to illustrations. The tablets are, if the images have a resolution that is high enough. An 800x600 image doesn't work well on newer tablets sporting a 2560x1920 resolution... and it will only get worse and worse.

Everyone wins once you stop assuming anything has to be the One True Way, and acknowledge that opinions differ.

The one true way is to offer digital media in the best quality from the start, if at all possible. But it won't be done, or there will be no reason to upgrade later on...

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

The one true way is to offer digital media in the best quality from the start, if at all possible. But it won't be done, or there will be no reason to upgrade later on...

I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Amazon's image resizing decisions are geared toward getting users to upgrade their hardware. It just doesn't wash. If the vast majority of customers out there have no clue that images are being resized, or that they could be "better", or if they even care at all; then how are they being encouraged to upgrade?

I'm OK with you wanting higher quality images, but I think suggesting that they don't provide them for reasons other than simply reducing transfer times and striving to achieving a balance of file-size to image quality is a pretty-big reach.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Amazon's image resizing decisions are geared toward getting users to upgrade their hardware. It just doesn't wash. If the vast majority of customers out there have no clue that images are being resized, or that they could be "better", or if they even care at all; then how are they being encouraged to upgrade?

I'm not talking about e-readers only, but all digital media. It will become available in better and better quality through the years, so old devices will not be able to use that new media, and an upgrade is required.

The gripe I'm having with that is that the quality offered is not the best quality that could be offered. If a certain quality level is available, I see no need to offer a lower one and then gradually work upward. The best should be offered from the start, except if the quality level is so high that no normal consumer equipment can be expected to reasonably handle it. In that case, the highest quality that can be handled by consumers should be offered, possibly alongside lower quality/cheaper alternatives for people who either can use the best, or don't care.

[eschwartz]

I'm outta here.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by shalym

I agree with the discussion of images--if there's an image I really want to see in detail, I will look at it on a larger screen. I definitely would never want to have a situation where an image was cut in half to be seen over two screens on my e-reader, or where I had to pan around in an e-ink reader.

I also wouldn't want a publisher (or retailer) to sell a book that wouldn't perform well on it's lowest device, which is what would happen if they sold it with all of the images in the highest resolution. I don't understand why you object to Amazon's way of doing it? As I understand it, they scale the pictures so that they look good no matter the device. If you download for an original Kindle, then you'll get low res pictures. If you download for Kindle for PC (or Mac) you'll get high res pictures. Or am I wrong, and that's NOT how Amazon does it?

Shari

Amazon cannot deliver to you high resolution images to fit your device if the eBook they have does not have such images. They'd have to upscale and that can be pretty poor depending on the image. Amazon would need to get new images for many many eBooks. Most eBooks Amazon sells do not have these images. Maybe they can do it we new eBooks, but eBooks pre-KFX most won't be able to deliver such images. Also, by going this JPEG XR format, Amazon is screwing with GIF and PNG put in place for specific reasons such as fine detail or transparency.

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Is this a comment on the formatting of the ebooks of the Fifty Shades of Grey series?

[theducks]

Originally Posted by murg

Is this a comment on the formatting of the ebooks of the Fifty Shades of Grey series?

But 50 is not a normal Hex range number
2
4
8
16 < my portable devices do this (F shades of grey?)
32
64