0
Under review

Boxshot 5.2.4 beta feedback

Vitaly Ovchinnikov 2 months ago updated 2 months ago 21

Boxshot 5.2.4 has been released, details are here: https://boxshot.com/2020/08/07/boxshot-5-2-4.html

Let us know in the comments below if you have any issues or suggestions.

this update looks bloody amazing!

There seems to be a bug in the fit to images with a hardback book. I typed in 3cm for the thickness and it changed it to 9.4cm. 

The cover artwork was 38.6×24.3. If I put in 3cm, it already knows the height is 24.6 from the pdf and the width of the page should be 17.8.

However, when I hit Fit to images, it gives:

width: 14.6

height: 23.5

and changes the thickness to 9.4cm!

This bug is on both hard back and paperback. Unless I am not using this correctly?

Also Windows gave me loads of warnings when I tried to download this. I’m guessing this is a beta issue.

The wrapped artwork is exactly what I need, but you have limited it to 1.5cm. For the job I was dealing with, the printer needed 2cm and the crop marks are out of this extra 2cm, so I need to wrap the artwork even more. Is it possible to allow more than 1.5cm? I would prefer 3cm if this is at all possible.

Feature-wise this is so perfect, I am so happy you were able to make this work.

Under review

This version should update the thickness by using the total artwork width and the book width. It sounds like you type in the thickness and it gets updated again. If I am wrong, please share a sample project, so we can test it here. It would help if you save it exactly before you clicked "Fit to images" and get the wrong dimensions.

As for the artwork wrapping, it is currently limited by the maximum distance between the leaves and cover edge plus some allowance for the cover thickness. It is not a problem to increase that, but the artwork will look "compressed" around the cover. Not sure if it is a good thing and there will be much more difficult to guess the proper number for non-stretched wrapping. Do you think it is worth it?

one more request/bug: I tried to do a small book (A6) cover with a thickness of 2mm, but the minimum is 5mm…

Yes, there are limits for all the parameters of the book. Say the cover thickness could be up to 2mm and if you make it such thick and set the total thickness to 2mm, what should Boxshot do? That's why there are limits. Another option is to remove the limits, but make buggy shapes for some extreme combinations of parameters.

As a workaround you could probably increase all the sizes by 10 times, so 2mm book becomes a 2cm one. Unless there's something else around no one will see the difference after rendering :)

Great update! Is there no option for a "Flat Spine" in hardcover books anymore? I messed with the edit shape editor, but no luck.

There is no "Flat spine" preset in the list (yet), but you can configure the spine shape in the manual mode.

I tried with no success. When I move the points of the rounded spine in to 0, the spine cover won't show in full as the spine is too deep into the book block.

+1

You might need to add some extra control points to the spine in order to get that square look. See below:

That's just a quick example, showing the idea. Spending a little bit more time in the editor could give even better shape.

That helped perfectly, thanks!

regarding the spine thickness

here are the assets: https://we.tl/t-CVUbivejaC

and here is a video explaining what I am doing: https://www.screencast.com/t/InvUOqwHwpfi


Regarding the 3cm overlap. I see what you are saying. However, what I was hoping could happen was that Boxshot would crop the extra space. The issue is that I will receive from the graphic designer the artwork with lots of bleed (more than necessary for boxshot and even crop marks). I don’t want that extra bleed to be compressed, but simply not to be used. So if only 5mm of the 30mm is needed, can the extra 25mm be cropped?

I appreciate that I could fix this in the crop texture button but the units there are pixels rather than mm.

Regarding the 2mm thickness. This is the smallest thickness a printer will print a book with a flat spine. Any thinner would become a magazine-bound book. Hence choosing 2mm as a minimum. It’s not important for my work, but it happened to come up so I thought I would mention it.

The documentation indicated that I could change the hardcover book to a spread or did I misread that?

Thanks for the video, appreciated. In one of the previous discussions you mentioned, that you usually know the width of the book, so it would be more convenient to enter the width in "full cover" mode, so Boxshot could calculate the thickness. In your video you put a 38.6 cm wide texture and leave the width as 14.6. Boxshot does the math: 38.6 - 14.6 * 2 = 9.4 and set the thickness to that value. Consider specifying the width instead. There is even a reminder about that under the "Fit to images" button.

I got your point regarding cropping. We'll need some time to have a look and see if it is possible. So far the "Crop texture" is the way to go, but it might not be as convenient, as the automatic cropping, of course.

We'll see what we can do for thinner books.

As for the hard cover books to spread transformation, the idea is that you can start with a closed standing hard cover book and make it completely open right in the editor. It is not about converting them to some other book type. You simply open the cover wide, split the textblock into two pieces and move them towards the open covers. Eventually, you'll get a "hard cover spread on the floor" shape out of the closed standing one. However, it takes time and it is much easier to start from the right shape initially.

Okay I am an idiot. Yes it works perfectly. My brain had decided that “width” was thickness. The moment I put in the width (as it says to do!) it works. User error!!!

If crop texture ends up being the way to go is it possible that the values can be mm? This way I can subtract 25mm?

Thinner books would be great.

Regarding the hard cover books to spread transformation, are you saying that you can simply edit the book manually and get to that point?

I was also curious about something. I am a typesetter so I typically do the interior of a book so I am left with a pdf of say 600 pages. The book that I demonstrated above, is a full colour book on the inside why my cover designer did the cover.

I want to do an open spread of the book, with a number of pages, turning over, I have to tediously add one page at a time. 

I do realise that this iteration of the software is feature complete so I am not expecting anything for version 5, but I was wondering if in the future there would be any value in the ability to add a pdf of the entire interior of a book and then boxshot would not only know how many pages (because the pdf had 600 pages), but a person could more easily choose a nice spread of images and when adding pages that are “turning” already have the images on both sides of that page? So let’s say I have the book open in the middle of the book, the user would see pages 300 and 301 already and then if chose to add another “page” already turning, then it would have page 302 and 303 already on that page without having to add them manually. Anyway crazy feature request for version 6 or 7 perhaps :-)

Anyway, I just want to say again how awesome this release is (especially now that the bug is not a bug but rather my own mistake – I guess that’s what happens when I test things in the middle of the night – yeah it’s 3:10am right now!)

Great, glad that it works for you. We did some tests and it seems that we can crop the wrapped artwork if it is too long, so this should be added in the next update. As for the "whole pdf" feature - it sounds interesting, but requires pdf pages support from Boxshot, which is not there yet. Please feel free to make a separate "idea" post about this feature, let's see if it gets some support from the community.

another question, whenever I send a file for rendering later, it randomly places the files in the list and then I have to hunt for the file. Is there a way of having the latest files always at the top of the queued rendering list?

screencast: https://www.screencast.com/t/OX0saijH

When you queue a rendering job, Boxshot makes a folder with a current timestamp in its name and then sorts the items by that name. You should get the latest queued element at the bottom of the list. It almost works that way in the video, except for a couple of items that go after the new item. Unfortunately, the screencast doesn't show the queued jobs folder, so I can't tell if this is true, but I suppose you have some normally-named folders there that go after the timestamp-named ones if sorted by name. Remove them and you should get the new items at the bottom.

Also, the job manager is not designed to keep all the finished jobs there forever. We recommend removing or replacing the job projects once they are finished. It is not a technical limitation or issue, though... It is just for your convenience.

But why at the bottom? Why scroll through all the list at all? And why can’t I leave the jobs there? What is the advantage in moving the job somewhere else? 

Technically, there is no specific reason to have them sorted ascending and we could reverse that. The only difference is that if you add multiple tasks at once, they will be listed in the "reverse" order. Maybe the sorting order should be an option...

Having the sorting order an option or a preference of course keeps everyone happy, but for me, just having them at the top would be ideal. Also, I render every image twice – once for Bēhance and once for my website. Let’s say I have 3 projects to render, that means 6 items. Each render will take about 25′, so I will in any case select to render the Bēhance projects first and then the website (ie out of order) so that I can do all the Bēhance jobs in one go. Having them all appear at the top means I can quickly find the jobs to select.

More critically, when I come back to my computer a few hours later, I can quickly find the projects that have been rendered at the top of the list, open their respective folders and upload the images.

+1

I got your point, thank you.

Commenting disabled