Launchbox Games Database Nomenclature

[Retrofrogg]

Looking to increase clarity on the different variations on a particular image type, and what people feel is best. The Launchbox Games Database has no guidance on what the various image types actually mean - and neither does Launchbox itself.

Currently, taking the "Box - Front" image type as an example, we have:

Box - Front

Box - Front Reconstructed

Fanart - Box - Front

As well as a few other more specific items.

Having spoken to @C-Beats about this, my understanding of what these mean is as below:

Box - Front : the front box as it originally was - an actual scan

Box - Front Reconstructed : an approximation of how the actual front box was, either put together from various elements, or a photoshopped tidy-up of the actual scan

Fanart - Box - Front : not the official original front box image, but a new unoffical image, created by users

My first query is whether the above is the general consensus.

And if so - where do we draw the line between Box - Front and Box - Front Reconstructed when the latter is a photoshopped tidy-up of the actual scan?

In my opinion, if the image has no discernible marks -i.e. it looks like a clean computer-generated image, rather than a scan of the actual box, then it should be labelled as Box - Front Reconstructed. You can easily tell the difference between these two by looking at the image; most images that are automatically scraped from the database look very clean. These tend to be labelled as Box - Front, but should really, as per the above, be labelled as Box - Front Reconstructed.

The reason for most of them being clean images is that these are readily available online and much easier to get hold of - actual authentic scans are harder to come by.

So my proposal is that Box - Front images should be and look like the actual scans - scuffs and all. Clean images should be labelled Box - Front Reconstructed. Proper scans should trump the clean images for the Box - Front category. Clean images should trump messy ones for the Box - Front Reconstructed category. Users can therefore choose what they prefer.

 

[C-Beats]

Think your confusion and the issue you're running into is you don't want perfect scans. You want scans with rips, tears, grime, and other defects. Most groups that do scans like this look for the highest quality they can get (aka DOESN'T have these things) and we follow that line of thinking pretty heavily here. Newer systems have their box images released publicly as part of their PR release packages as well (or for their digital storefront) and so you can get source image with DOES qualify but CAN'T have physical defect because it was never physical to begin with.

[Freestate]

On 12/26/2022 at 1:01 PM, Retrofrogg said:

Looking to increase clarity on the different variations on a particular image type, and what people feel is best. The Launchbox Games Database has no guidance on what the various image types actually mean - and neither does Launchbox itself.

Currently, taking the "Box - Front" image type as an example, we have:

Box - Front

Box - Front Reconstructed

Fanart - Box - Front

As well as a few other more specific items.

Having spoken to @C-Beats about this, my understanding of what these mean is as below:

Box - Front : the front box as it originally was - an actual scan

Box - Front Reconstructed : an approximation of how the actual front box was, either put together from various elements, or a photoshopped tidy-up of the actual scan

Fanart - Box - Front : not the official original front box image, but a new unoffical image, created by users

My first query is whether the above is the general consensus.

And if so - where do we draw the line between Box - Front and Box - Front Reconstructed when the latter is a photoshopped tidy-up of the actual scan?

In my opinion, if the image has no discernible marks -i.e. it looks like a clean computer-generated image, rather than a scan of the actual box, then it should be labelled as Box - Front Reconstructed. You can easily tell the difference between these two by looking at the image; most images that are automatically scraped from the database look very clean. These tend to be labelled as Box - Front, but should really, as per the above, be labelled as Box - Front Reconstructed.

The reason for most of them being clean images is that these are readily available online and much easier to get hold of - actual authentic scans are harder to come by.

So my proposal is that Box - Front images should be and look like the actual scans - scuffs and all. Clean images should be labelled Box - Front Reconstructed. Proper scans should trump the clean images for the Box - Front category. Clean images should trump messy ones for the Box - Front Reconstructed category. Users can therefore choose what they prefer.

no, quality gets over fidelity. Launchbox database is not a strict place for preservation, it's a database to provide art for an eye candy  game frontent, that's why we provide fanmedia and also allow romhacks and homebrew. The ortodox way of keeping raw scans in main category falls into having tons of (apologies for the gross word) s***y and dirty LQ quality images as main ones, with heavy degradation, scratches, misplaced, etc. That was an old debate in the database years ago and looking at the results.... quality of cleaned and restored images got priority. Reconstructed category was used in the last years to add this images that are using plastic box templates to provide homogeneus look or for that reconstructions that are less precise and abuse of some misplacing in ratio, elements..  etc.

Please there's a lot of places for strict  scan preservation, don't scalate this debate again. We are working with media from decades ago, there's a lot of heavy work of many contributors to provide clean images to see replaced by some conservative guy that spits on their free 3 hours of cleaning dust, scratchers, ratio, etc to see a non adressed scan with marks of heavy use on it.

No, dust, sunfading, twinkie stains and scratches are not cool....                                                                                                                            

                         

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Freestate

[faeran]

On 12/26/2022 at 7:01 AM, Retrofrogg said:

Box - Front : the front box as it originally was - an actual scan

 

I think this may cause confusion here. A Box - Front image does not actually mean that the image is required to be scanned.

Box - Front is the image type designed around the idea that it's as close to the original front of a game's box that we can get. Whether it was going into a store in the 80s and picking a game off the shelf, or a digital release today, this image type should represent as close to the original as we can get to that experience.

This means that Box - Front does not equate to good scans, bad scans, raw scans, a good scan of a badly damaged box... or really has anything to do with scanning specifically. We are just looking for as close to an authentic image that we could get when the box was new.

[Retrofrogg]

Lol @Freestate, thanks for your opinion, albeit a rather polarised one. Suffice to say we disagree in a few areas, including how "quality" applies here. A dime-a-dozen perfectly reconstructed and Photoshopped image of the original box takes away any of the box-aspect and leaves you with simply the image that went on the box. I want to see the box, not just the image on it (in particular now that we have 3D rotatable models). Though, different strokes for different folks and all that. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your second paragraph, in particular the unjustified vitriol.

1 hour ago, faeran said:

Box - Front is the image type designed around the idea that it's as close to the original front of a game's box that we can get.

Wouldn't that be....a scan? Talking about retro systems I mean. How do you get closer to the actual box than a high quality scan of the actual box? I agree that as close to an authentic image that we can get when the box was new is what we're looking for. Though to take forward the idea of authentic...to me this would imply that any creases, marks or even just the uneven edges of the original box should be captured. If you edit these away, you lose some authenticity IMHO.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Retrofrogg

[Freestate]

2 minutes ago, Retrofrogg said:

Lol @Freestate, thanks for your opinion, albeit a rather polarised one. Suffice to say we disagree in a few areas, including how "quality" applies here. A dime-a-dozen perfectly reconstructed and Photoshopped image of the original box takes away any of the box-aspect and leaves you with simply the image that went on the box. I want to see the box, not just the image on it. Though, different strokes for different folks and all that. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your second paragraph, in particular the unjustified vitriol.

 

I have already warned and apologized in advance for the tone, do not take it as something literal. But it is that restoring old and damaged images is extremely hard, many hours of free work to get images that are worthy of appearing on a frontend where other artists also put a lot of effort into creating themes, vector graphics, etc. It is very frustrating that you have spent several hours cleaning all the traces of dust and scratches in a box where the color black predominates, that you have cleaned the damage from the corners, all so that the image is of the highest quality and as close as possible. to something undamaged for someone to come and replace it again with a raw scan full of defects. Yes, there are tastes of all kinds, but we have already had this debate many times in previous years, and it is obvious that the cleaned and restored images have won the game. It is the best way to offer a consistent and homogeneous experience that resembles having the games in an official service. In the successive mini consoles that have been released in recent years, the cover images also have cleaning and restoration work, it is impossible to offer a consistent and homogeneous experience when we work with games from decades ago with cardboard boxes.

[damageinc86]

On 12/26/2022 at 4:01 AM, Retrofrogg said:

Box - Front : the front box as it originally was - an actual scan

If the "Box - Front" designation is the front box as IT originally WAS, then you could easily argue that the actual original box produced probably had no shelf wear or creases at all, as it was most likely delivered to an executive art director's desk for inspection.  Also, probably not even folded into a box yet!  So as pristine as it could possibly be.  Scan that, and you'd have a damn nice image for the frontend without much cleanup needed.  So processing a scan that was made decades later to be as clean as possible would make it resemble THE original box as it WAS, much more than scanning in a tattered, stained, and creased box would.

Edited December 30, 2022 by damageinc86

[Retrofrogg]

11 hours ago, Freestate said:

I have already warned and apologized in advance for the tone

I’m sorry, I must have missed that apology, if you are indeed referring to my thread. In my original post I was just seeking the opinions of community members as to the generally accepted meanings of box - front and box - front reconstructed. Suffice to say I have yours. 

11 hours ago, Freestate said:

restoring old and damaged images is extremely hard, many hours of free work to get images that are worthy of appearing on a frontend

I’m sure it can be hard. I’ve done one or two myself. Whether something is worthy however is a value judgement and is up to each individual user to decide. 

11 hours ago, Freestate said:

It is very frustrating

I can see you’re frustrated. 

11 hours ago, Freestate said:

you have spent several hours

Hey, it’s your time, and if you feel it’s well spent then that’s what matters!

11 hours ago, Freestate said:

it is obvious that the cleaned and restored images have won the game

It’s not a game or a competition; each individual user is free to use whatever box images they like. 

11 hours ago, Freestate said:

consistent and homogeneous experience that resembles having the games in an official service

That seems a strange way to put it, and is maybe where some of the conflict lies. I don’t want each box to be consistent and homogenous - I want it to look like the real thing, i.e. what I had on my shelves as a kid. Retro is old and dusty, not clean and homogenous. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Retrofrogg

[kurzih]

Some of you have already have heard my opinion about this. In most parts I support Retrofrogg's and many others views - we like the way things looked originally as close as possible, we used to be the kids playing those games back in the days. For me it's really disturbing to see the traces of edits and unfortunately I can spot them quite easily. The best reconstruction in my opinion would be one that you can't spot the changes. Worst of all are those AI enhanced images that boost image size and put some super-weird filter (waifu2x or whatever) that look horrible up-close, especially with text elements. I also think that "paint bucketing", for example a reflective golden/silver box with a monochromatic color is bad. But it gets really bad if you then overwrite the original image that was previously uploaded and accepted to the database:

For me the main issue is a small number of persons taking away the choice of the Launchbox users of what image they can choose from when someone replaces a really good (scanned or not) image with a clearly reconstructed image - just because of the thought of it being the "default" image on the online database. That feels like an ego issue that should have no place here. Those different image types are there for users to choose from. In your own Launchbox you can choose reconstructed images as the main image with image priorities if you like so. You shouldn't have the right to choose what other can have when you overwrite different image types on the online database. Sure, there are images, scanned images for example - or even worse, photographed images (with flash, reflections of the photographer) that are of poor quality. But what stops anyone for getting a better source for the image that is still authentic? I've done that countless times. In most cases you save a tone of time searching or producing (scanning?) a better image, than trying to fix it on a image edit software.

Not too long ago I uploaded a few super-high-quality, good looking Famicom scans. Unsurprisingly a few weeks later someone "had" to REPLACE those good scans with those personal edits. Not bothering to upload it separately as a reconstructed image (SNES and NES platforms for some reasons are targets for reconstructions overwriting scanned images as soon as one emerges). That kind of behavior doesn't motivate uploading good quality, authentic images. In the other hand, there are a persons doing it respectfully the right way, for example in the Amiga section, kindly uploading the work as reconstructions to others who enjoy that alternative.

Sadly I've lost interest in using the online database for updating my media and also uploading there as much as I did before. I'm just trying to protect what I have now locally and I'm super happy to have at least 99% of authentic (old school) and official source material (games of today) as good quality as I can and as Faeran said, as close to the original experience as possible, whether it's a scan or not.

[Scotsman]

Adding my 2 cents for sh*ts & Giggles.
 
IF a game has a PR release pack and/or digital store box, they should always take priority for Box - Front/Back. These are essentially 1-for-1 the same as the designers final version (barring any last minute changes after PR pack releases) and nothing else will come close with respect to quality and accuracy.

High quality unedited scans should be used next because if scanned correctly, these are more faithful to the designers original work than any recon.

Reconstructions i.e. layering elements to replicate the original box may be fairly accurate to the original, and certainly be of "high" quality but I have NEVER seen the perfect reconstruction yet that is both higher quality AND as accurate as the original. There are always some quality differences between the base image/layered elements or some asset alignment/box ratio issues that makes the reconstruction obvious.

The only person that could maybe do a near perfect recon is the original designer, using all of the original assets and even that's questionable that they could recreate it 1-for-1.

Now for edited images, I personally don't mind if an image, with only some small/light edits is added to the Box - Front/Back category. But it should always be added as a separate Box - Front/Back if an original scan is present. That way people have a choice between quality & fidelity.

Heavily edited images can, without a doubt, be higher quality than some original artwork scans. But in the end, ANY editing, big or small, by definition is a recon. You have literally reconstructed/recreated an approximation of the original image/design. 

Those were just my personal preferences, but ultimately, the recon category is there for a reason and regardless of quality/fidelity or peoples personal opinions, the guidelines are clear:
Rule 7 - Front and Back Box Art must have the proper regional tag and be added to the proper category.
Rule 7.1 - Reconstructed box art can not be used in any other category then the reconstructed section.

Edited December 31, 2022 by IainSA

[kurzih]

On 12/31/2022 at 7:03 AM, IainSA said:

Those were just my personal preferences, but ultimately, the recon category is there for a reason and regardless of quality/fidelity or peoples personal opinions, the guidelines are clear:
Rule 7 - Front and Back Box Art must have the proper regional tag and be added to the proper category.
Rule 7.1 - Reconstructed box art can not be used in any other category then the reconstructed section.

Indeed. Rules are rules and everyone should follow them. Unfortunately someone just moments ago tried to replace a HQ Super Famicom scan with a "scratch fix", instead of uploading it separately as a reconstruction. Although this example has minor(ish) changes, there has been other major edits I've seen replacing authentic images, especially in the SNES section: 

https://gamesdb.launchbox-app.com/games/images/22456 (I don't know if the cover has been replaced already by this "fix", lets hope moderators are awake and follow the rules)

On the left the original scan with a scratch, on the right a (poor) fix attempt using blur effect (click the image for full-size). If the original image is replaced by a random person's edit (and this edit actually stands out more than the scratch to be honest), which image can you then choose from? You can't with that kind of selfish behavior. I doubt this is what the developers had in mind when they gave us the different image types and database guidelines/rules, right @Jason Carr?
 

And why the blurring on the blue background/corner?

I could find and show hundreds of example even worse than this, but frankly I will not use more of my time on this "replace & destroy" issue. Thank you for reading anyway! 😅
 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by kurzih

[Freestate]

On 12/30/2022 at 12:43 PM, kurzih said:

Worst of all are those AI enhanced images that boost image size and put some super-weird filter (waifu2x or whatever) that look horrible up-close, especially with text elements.


 

 You need to take into account that normally we see the boxes downscaled of their native resolution, AI filters make a really good job in restoring images with strong degradation due to JPG compresion loss, the effect could be visible if you make zoom but in their frontend presentation (downscaled they look clearer and better. I've restored thousands of covers on the database (at least half of the snes boxes are restored by me) and I always look for scans of the highest quality and when possible I use the same textures and elements of the cover so that it is practically not noticeable when I remove scratches or specks of dust on the surfaces, but you should have seen the sources that I had at hand. time to add covers of extremely rare japanese pachinko games, a terrible job where the AI tools and a lot of manual labor make it at least not eye-bleeding in contrast to the available high-quality scans. In an ideal world we would have the digital scans of all the games provided by the same companies, but the reality is that as soon as we get out of the most popular games and sometimes not even with those we mostly have very deteriorated sources. And I think that between choosing deterioration and retouched images, the experience improves with the latter. For example, I was very fond of AI filters and sometimes I restored textures with flat color and I no longer do it because it looks artificial and I prefer that a certain texture typical of the paper be noticed. And shiny metallic boxes that I restored badly before, I made them again adding gold or silver textures and shine. I understand what you're saying about fidelity, and in recent years I've been much more careful when it comes to restoring images where the original source is very good, but when it's bad, it touches heavy manipulation. And I commented a long time ago that giving priority to almost untouched images by default, led us to a database with a handful of good scans and tons of horrible garbage. I think things are much better now. Precisely in new scrappings I saw that someone had replaced one of my hard restorations with a very good scan and I worked with him to simply clean it, without extreme filters.